More Claims From NSA Whistleblower Russell Tice

eldavojohn writes "Russell Tice, former NSA employee & whistleblower, has revealed yet more details claiming that wiretapping was combined with credit card data to target civilians. He also suggests the CEOs of major companies hold the truth: 'To get at what's really going on here, the CEOs of these telecom companies, and also of the banking and credit card companies, and any other company where you have big databases, those are the people you have to haul in to Congress and tell them you better tell the truth.' Will Congress follow his suggestions?" This adds to information revealed by Tice last week that the wiretaps targeted journalists in particular.

Comments

Hard evidence

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

People are saying this guy was just a mid level analyst. Does he have any hard evidence or is he just drumming up publicity to sell a book?

Re:Hard evidence

[flitty]

Two appearances with no evidence/verifiable information. One more, Tice, and you will be /ignored.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

No one in their right mind screws around with these people just to sell a book. It just isn't worth it.

Re:Hard evidence

[yakmans_dad]

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Re:Hard evidence

[gfxguy]

He's starting to sound a bit nutty. I wonder if aliens are wiretapping his phone. I don't mean the illegal kind.

Re:Hard evidence

[WindowlessView]

Does he have any hard evidence

What if he does? How long before "certain elements" of the media and body politic start accusing him of treason for how it was acquired or the fact that he released it?

Re:Hard evidence

[Shakrai]

Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?

Good thing Obama filibustered that thing like he promise.... oh, never mind.....

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?

Good thing Obama filibustered that thing like he promise.... oh, never mind.....

Ah, so that means ... that there's nothing to look for? How does that work?

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

start accusing him of treason

It's only treason if it's true.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so that means ... that there's nothing to look for? How does that work?

It means the savior is a calculating (some would say lying) politician like any other, all claims to "change" notwithstanding. There is still a large contingent of followers who refuse to accept this and provide all manner of rationalizations.

Re:Hard evidence

[WindowlessView]

It's only treason if it's true.

In other words, "you were right, go directly to jail, do not pass Go."

Seems to me he is playing his best card by stirring things up and trying to shame Congress and the administration into doing their jobs.

Re:Hard evidence

[TheGratefulNet]

obama this and obama that.

1) he's human
2) humans are corruptable
3) presidency always ALWAYS corrupts (its too much power for any single human being to weild)

draw your own conclusions.

I expect nothing 'new' from obama. the machine is what matters and he's only a small cog; a figurehead. the machine LIKES power and will never give it up once it has it. have we not seen that play over and over, in history?

obama won't be as evil as bush but he's human and will be corrupted by the power he received. its not his fault but ours for giving TOO much power, essentially unchecked by The People, to our own government. the gov no longer works for us, it thinks we work for it. its already broken beyond repair, sorry to say.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you take a wrong turn on the way www.crazymutherfucker.net?

Re:Hard evidence

[philspear]

It really comes down to the following difficult decision: who do you trust more. The last administration or a mid level NSA worker with little to no proof?

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't believe he is in possession of stolen classified information. He probably doesn't want to spend tens of years in a federal prison and/or be fined up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"Hard evidence" for this sort of wrong doing would fall under the above category, and comes in neat little binders warnings written in large very unfriendly letter. Whistleblower status would not protect him from prosecution from violating federal laws.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

3) presidency always ALWAYS corrupts

I assume you actually meant "junior senatorship" corrupts. He voted for telecom immunity before he switched jobs.

Re:Hard evidence

[flitty]

Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?

Yes, yes it does. I believe it was to allow the companies that allowed for International-Domestic wiretaps to occur without a warrant from the FISA courts to not be persecuted due to some sort of "duty to stop terrorism" or some other trumped up charge. Yes, it was stupid, yes I'm still mad that our Pres. didn't stand up like he said he would.

However, If you are inferring that telecom immunity was to allow ALL wiretaps on anyone anywhere in the name of stopping terra, I think it would have been a bigger story than it was. Now, could the immunity bill allow for such exclusions to persecution if what Tice is claiming is true? I'm sure they'll try that defense if it is ever looked into (HIGHLY doubt it), but I don't think it will hold up.

Re:Hard evidence

[Joe Snipe]

Your sig is wrong it wasn't safe at all! :(

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, Burn.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

To sell the book, then give the monies back to NSA. /start conspiracy.. now!

Re:Hard evidence

[timepilot]

Um, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for a civil war. Please don't compare the two.

Re:Hard evidence

[EQ]

Having worked there in the black tower at Ft Meade (and more importantly, the lower brick building with the looooong hallways that is connected to it, which is where the real work gets done), this guy is appearing to be less and less believable.

There one thing that rings the BS bell for this guy: NSA is VERY compartmentalized. Information simply does not cross boundaries there, and there are multiple checks and curbs to see that compartmentalized intelligence is not shared out, so that the sources and methods are protected. In the past, there have (allegedly) been times when people died or bad events were allowed in order to preserve sources and methods. This is RELIGION at NSA: protect sources and methods, PERIOD. That means compartmentalization really slices the world up, and you only get to see your sliver of it as an analyst.

That's one of the major frustrations I and others had there when working there as an analyst: you only get blindered, partial, or gappy info and data. Many times, the best you get are "sanitized" analyst/reporting products from other programs and compartments that has been scrubbed so clean of sources and methods that it is scarcely useful. This makes one's analysis necessarily incomplete in many case because one simply do not have the raw data on hand except that for which one's own compartment is responsible. As an analyst, you end up using hedge-words, and all kinds of "fudge factor" language.

So I doubt anyone his level or near his level (above him) has that much scope, nor has that sort of visibility into programs across such a broad swath of intelligence collection, processing, analysis and reporting. Because it would ring alarm bells in personnel security if one person of that level were to be read-on to so many special compartmented access programs, sufficent enough to be privy to so many programs, sources and methods.

Furthermore, he cites no real specifics in these cases, not a shred of *actionable* evidence, only vague and overly-broad allegations, all given in a conspiracy-tinged "dramatic" way.

He may have reported some issues correctly regarding telecom intercepts (the legality of which have been upheld, and which the Obama administration seems to find useful now that they are tasked with protecting the nation), but a lot of this seems to me to be simply speculation on his part.

The applicable USSIDs and Presidential Directives are pretty tight about these sorts of things, and the NSA Inspector General pounds people for violating these sorts of things. This is another reason Tice's claims seem hollow to an insider(aside from the utter lack of actionable specific hard evidence): he apparently never went to the IG.

Initially his claims appeared to merit attention, but all in all, Tice is beginning to sound more like a crank who wants face-time on Olberman than anyone with a legitimate, actionable claim, with evidence to back it up.

Advice from one ex-"A wing" denizen: Start naming names, places, and activities, ones that can be verified by the IG and the US Attorney General; they love to rip NSA program managers. Otherwise, Tice needs to realize he's not "Mother" and this isn't Sneakers.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

However, If you are inferring that telecom immunity was to allow ALL wiretaps on anyone anywhere in the name of stopping terra, I think it would have been a bigger story than it was. Now, could the immunity bill allow for such exclusions to persecution if what Tice is claiming is true?

Yes, because the Telco immunity also said that states could not investigate any wrongdoing by the telcos and that both the telcos and NSA can destroy records.

So... no investigating, no papertrail, and instant-immunity means we'll probably never find out what really happened.

Besides, FISA was unconstitutional as is, they've only made it worse. 72 hours of warrantless wiretapping instead of 48.

Sure, the constitution is a "living document" but that doesn't mean you can interpret it however you want. If you're doing something diametrically opposed to the constitution you need to amend the damn thing.
Yes I know it's hard to do, but it's hard to do for a GOOD DAMN REASON.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only treason if it's true.

In other words, "you were right, go directly to jail, do not pass Go."

Seems to me he is playing his best card by stirring things up and trying to shame Congress and the administration into doing their jobs.

You got modded +5 for implying that shaming politicians - especially DEMOCRATS - works?

Good God, man. Barney "There's nothing wrong with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" Frank's gay lover runs a drug/prostitution ring right in the "Honorable Member's" HOME, while a Republican gets unconstitutionally arrested and run out of the Senate for playing footsie?

Re:Hard evidence

[0123456]

"Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but no one goes around calling him, "evil"."

You should read more blogs; lots of people think Lincoln was evil for destroying the Constitution in order to centralise power in DC.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the repugnant republicans insist on calling President Obama "the savior"??

They really are the only ones to do so.

I suppose it IS handy that they make sure we know they are semi-fringe nutcakes, just like the ones that insist on using his middle name every time they use/say/type his name.

Re:Hard evidence

[WindowlessView]

You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh?

Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.

Re:Hard evidence

[b4dc0d3r]

Any chance Obama was privy to additional information that made him change his mind? If that were the case, he really couldn't come out and say "There's information that I have been told but I can't tell you what it is but just trust me." I would have voted against him if he did that. Especially after becoming president, there are many promises that you simply can't keep because you didn't have enough information.

Your post basically says there is no hope so don't try to change anything. Instead, you should put effort into asking for more transparency. If we knew what was happening, and Russell Tice could say it matches what he saw happening, it would make a lot more sense. If it is an evil machine, we need to push to see what's happening. If it is just a bunch of normal people making normal mistakes, only on a national level, transparency can only help.

What you see as a conspiracy against normal people looks to me like a bunch of people allowed to operate in secrecy and not having to explain themselves.

It would be better for people to get behind drives like DownsizeDC. Even if you don't agree with the idea of downsizing government, many of their campaigns have no reasonable counterargument. Write the laws yourself instead of accepting industry-written text, read bills before voting, no bundling of unrelated riders. I'm no libertarian myself, so some campaigns make sense to me and some not so much. These kinds of things should be our focus, not surrender, cynicism, and apathy.

Re:Hard evidence

[dwarg]

The CEO of Qwest Communications made the same claim and he ended up in jail. They were the only telco that refused to turn over caller records without a proper subpoena. He also claims that the wiretapping program began before 9-11. And he isn't the only one.

Re:Hard evidence

[moxley]

He's credible and yes has plenty of proof.

The guy is basically a hero - he stood up and respected his oath to the constitution as well as the NSA's own policies "Thou shalt not spy on Americans;" at great risk to himself - I know I would never want to be on the bad side of any of our Intelligence agencies.

He is already having to put up with FBI intimidation.

I know I don't want to live in a world where the sort of corruption and tyranny we've seen since 9/11 doesn't only increase in scope, but is unchecked and legitimized (attempts at legitimization with ex post facto immunity and other such things seem to be being considered).
  I will really be watching Obama on this to see if his actions live up to his rhetoric.

People who value our heritage as Americans and our constitution who are in government service and who are willing to stick their necks out to do the right thing deserve massive respect. I hope that there are more people like Tice in these agencies, because our constitution and the laws surrounding intelligence gathering are extremely important to ensure that these powers aren't abused. We need intelligence agencies, as much now as ever - and I am sure that most of the people who work for these agencies are good, upstanding people - but with the way compartmentalization works it is very easy for some extremely shady stuff to go on (EG international drug trafficking, etc) - this is how it has been for a long time, and that's not going to change - but as far as spying on Americans and wholesale data collection without warrants - there are reasons why this isn't and shouldn't be allowed - when you add in the fact that journalists now know that they especially are targets for government surveillance it doesn't bode well for any sort of "democracy."

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me until here...
 
 

obama won't be as evil as bush but he's human and will be corrupted by the power he received.

 
In many ways he's already shown he's just as evil or worse. I'm sure you cannot make it half as far as he has without already being corrupted to the point of absurdity. It's definitely broken and is not going to recover.

Re:Hard evidence

[Tekfactory]

Since his main claim seems to be on wiretapping I do believe you're right. If he were right it would have to go down more like this;

BOGUS THEORY: "The conspiracy theorists are right" and the NSA really IS after a ghetto patchwork version of Total Information Awareness, thus his implications that all banks and companies with big databases on people should be asked to testify before congress.

This supposes he worked on the database side, and only knew as much about the wiretapping as he read in the papers. END THEORY

What is more likely is he knew something about the wiretapping program or parrots what he reads, and found the TIA stuff on some conspiracy theorist blog somewhere.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, I think I read it on /. first, its the idea that the government wanted information on everybody under the name Total Information Awareness, but couldn't buy it, or collect it due to the Privacy Act. The theory is that all the data breaches we see now are conducted directly or indirectly on behalf of secret agencies and they get their information that way. Or that the breaches are conducted for criminal reasons, but when the hackers get caught extra copies of the data get sent to the secret agencies.

Detractors of the theory say that if that many people knew about it, somebody would have said something by now.

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

"this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth"

Our Savior, the Almighty, the All Powerful, the One, Barry.

Re:Hard evidence

[Hordeking]

Um, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for a civil war. Please don't compare the two.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, replaced Maryland's gov't with a puppet government, garrisoned Missouri and Maryland, declared laws effective where he had no sovereignty (yet didn't apply them to his own jurisdiction), and greatly increased federal control over the states, leading us up to some the mess we have now.

I'd say Lincoln might have been the worst president we had, hands-down. He's not the benevolent saviour everyone claims in the history books.

I'd call him distinctly evil.

Re:Hard evidence

[CrimsonAvenger]

obama won't be as evil as bush

And you know this how?

Not saying you're wrong, mind you, though I don't think Bush was as evil as the left made him out to be. But how do you know this?

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

It's an admission of the nature of George W. Bush. See because, anything not Republican is by definition a polar opposite. BTW as a Liberal that would like to attend church I find the conflating of Religion and Politics to be both an act of false prophecy and a violation of the first amendment.

Yes I am beginning to believe that ALL conservatives are FAR out on the fringe. The republican fringe has been centralized.

Re:Hard evidence

[Beezlebub33]

Everything he did, whether you agree with his tactics or not, was to fight terrorism/protect the country.

No, this is incorrect. He did a great deal that had nothing to do with terrorism / protect the country. He screwed up environmental regulations, politicized the judiciary and US attorneys, mismanaged the economy badly, screwed the budgets, totally bungled the response to Katrina, destroyed our foreign policy, entangled church and state, and reduced human rights in the US and abroad.

I don't think he was evil as much as he was incompetent, short-sighted, and selfish. He put the priorities of a select few (his friends, both political, personal, and financial) far and away before the priorities of the country.

I expect Obama to be confronted by the same conflicts, doubts, and difficulties faced by Bush. But I expect him to make far better decisions and implement them in far better fashion. He could hardly do worse.

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

Silly republican, the intended application of science is not a reference to "magic stuff".

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

I think your opinion of Barry and of Science are both higher than is warranted.

Of course if you doubt Barry's demi-god status among his supporters, you simply have to read more Slashdot.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

He voted for telecom immunity before he switched jobs.

He was running for President at the time. You don't think that might have influenced his change of heart just a little?

Re:Hard evidence

[wclacy]

I expect Obama to be confronted by the same conflicts, doubts, and difficulties faced by Bush. But I expect him to make far better decisions and implement them in far better fashion. He could hardly do worse.

The first 9 days Obama has already done worse than Bush had done his first year.

You talk about screwing up budgets and here Democrats and Obama are looking at the largest pork spending bill in history. This bill actually has things in it that will hurt the economy, with very little that will stimulate it.

Obama is in the process of screwing up:The Federal Budget, Environmental Policy, Foreign Policy, The Economy, and Freedom in America. And doing it without any resistance from congress.

The worse thing Bush did in his 8 years as president was try to work with Democrats. Together they increased Social Spending, increased Federal Government involvement in Education, and then there were the billions in bailout money that was full of pork.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

Hell, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, but no one goes around calling him, "evil".

Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. as a lover of the Constitution and from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.

He was the first Dictator of the United states. A despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for nothing more than voicing an opinion against the war... A war.. where several states simply wanted to leave a so called "voluntary union" they entered into.

No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.

Of interest also.. is if you look at this shot of his chair at the Lincoln memorial http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg There are fasces on his chair, you have seen them before but might not know what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces Fasces are where we derive the term "fascist". The individuals are the rods, bound by a cord or "the state", and anyone who is not.. gets the axe.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth.. from a position of freedom I need to say.. the truth is Lincoln was no hero.

He was the first Dictator of the United states. A Despotic tyrant that shredded the constitution and even had newspaper reporters arrested. The man who is hailed for the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) but kept them in bondage in the north. Lincoln started a unconstitutional draft, unconstitutional military spending, the suspending of habeas corpus that allowed thousands to be imprisoned for voicing an opinion against the war.

No.. he wasn't evil.. he was FUCKING EVIL, and could have schooled Bush and Cheney on a few things.

Of interest also.. is if you look at this shot of his chair at the Lincoln memorial http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg There are fasces on his chair, you have seen them before but might not know what they mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces Fasces are where we derive the term "fascist". The individuals are the rods, bound by a cord or "the state", and anyone who is not.. gets the axe.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

Oops didn't mean to respond to this one too.. ahh well so much for my karma. ;-)

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell?

Take a look at the changes that were made the night before the senate vote. That's the real secret no one is talking about and I suspect it's why so many people flopped.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

He has the burden of proof.. but perhaps the NSA should just open that door up to a few people.. how about let Bruce Schneier in there, I would trust him.

Re:Hard evidence

[J05H]

Fasces - the original symbol of Roman power. A Senator's posse would carry the bundle where they went and untie it for use in rough situations. Whoever his best warrior was would grab the ax, everyone else grabs a stick and starts smashing heads.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh?

Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.

You're a total idiot.

Barney Frank goes on TV and claims there's no problem at all with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, because Bush and some Republicans were trying to fix questionable lending practices that put the entire foundation of the US financial sector at risk, and because those questionable lending practices aid Democratic constituencies, Frank, Dodd, Obama, and a shitload of other Dems put a stop to those reforms.

So Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failed, and dragged down the rest of the US and the world economy.

And you've got the idiotic gall to call BUSH a sociopath?

You're a waste of protoplasm. The best part of your entire existence was wasted when your dad shot it up your mom's ass.

Re:Hard evidence

[El Yanqui]

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory.

Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

My bet is on a book.

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

I find your views both unpatriotic and regressive.

The demi-god argument is tired and baseless. "Barry" is not Charlie Manson.

Re:Hard evidence

[El Yanqui]

Ya gotta love Slashdot moderation. This is flamebait? Dubya wasn't a good president, but if you want to use the word evil to describe him then what words do you have left for Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc? He was misguided and we can all Monday morning quarterback because we have that luxury. I didn't vote for him, I didn't support the majority of his decisions but I find people who call him evil incredibly simple minded.

Go ahead and mod me flamebait or troll. It appears that is the necessary reaction to calling hyperbole what it is.

Re:Hard evidence

[neomunk]

Wait, what? Can I have a source on this please? Sounds like a story I'd really like to hear, because as of right now my sympathies lie with Wilson and his wife, but if what you say is true, that situation would change quickly.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps for much the same reason the majority of the posts and comments at DailyKos seemed nearly unable to call President Bush (43) "President Bush" or "Bush" or "The President" or just "POTUS" and instead used, almost exclusively, terms like "Chimp".

The far left had BDS, the far right now has ODS. It's easiest to just ignore it on both sides -- there will always be off the edge fringies 360 degrees around rational thought.

(BTW, I assume you are not implying that all republicans are repugnant, but just those that have ODS. That's another problem those with BDS over on DailyKos often had, they were (and still are) as likely to mistype Republican as "Rethug" - something about their spell checkers and autocorrect I assume.)

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

And you obviously missed that fact that he said these words while accepting the democratic nomination. He wasn't even in the White House and yet the Oceans and the Earth, THAT DAY, began to respond to his divine will. Or so he would like to think.

Charlie Manson had a greater sense of humility.

Re:Hard evidence

[yakmans_dad]

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory. Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.

Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

Call a gaffe a gaffe. The rest is TIRED and BASELESS. Of course, regressives are quite used to reiterating tired and baseless assertions ad infinitum, it prevents the necessity of logic in an argument.

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

A gaffe is when you say there are 57 states in the union instead of 50. Although, I do recall he stopped to think about it before he said it.

And I guess "progressives" know all about reiterating baseless assertions ad infinitum. they've had 8 years of practice.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys don't even put up the pretense of sanity anymore, huh? Shame has no meaning for sociopaths like the Bushies and the "we just close ranks and follow orders" Republican Congress. At least there is a chance with the Democrats.

I don't envy you for the brutal stick of reality that is going to hit you upside the head. In 4 years I expect your tune to be 'at least there is a chance with the Greens/Libertarians/Communists/Anarchists/Hypno Toad Party. In 8 years you'll just be shouting 'Get off my lawn'.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't work with this particular three-letter-agency, but it's certainly no stretch to see how the Parent's point is true across the IC. In my experience, information is not shared between programs except where absolutely required, even if they happen to be in the same compartment.

Depending on how long ago the Parent Poster worked there, though, a lot may have changed. There's been a move away from need-to-know and toward responsibility-to-share. Intelink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelink for some generic info) is extremely cool in concept and execution, and is very useful. I don't believe that it even could have existed in the 'old days' when agencies were more jealous of information.

As for Tice not sharing specific, actionable information... of course he's not. Hell, I've ended up deleting half my post during editing to be sure the info is generic enough that I don't let slip even an unclassified fact that isn't supposed to be mentioned. Whatever he knows is undoubtedly SCI or SAP, and he'd call down one hell of a crapstorm on himself if he breathed a single word too many. He's probably already said enough to be culpable, especially if the "existence of" the stuff he's blabbing about is classified. In that case, he's probably dancing the line between protected whistle-blower and criminally mishandling classified info.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I was with you until the last paragraph. I was going to chime in to say that you're in hostile country and behooved to provide more evidence of what Obama is doing wrong by at least providing links, not that many of the democratic partisan hacks here would bother to listen to the arguments. Hell, I was even thinking about linking some for you! Then I read the last paragraph and :(ed.

You're just a republican partisan hack. You're on your own.

Re:Hard evidence

[BlackSnake112]

Did he vote or just press 'present'?

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

"A gaffe is when you say there are 57 states in the union instead of 50."

I suppose you looked it up?

"And I guess "progressives" know all about reiterating baseless assertions ad infinitum. they've had 8 years of practice."

Oh snap, another argument killer. Wait, isn't a third of that line mine? Logic, does not involve redecorating language to serve your own ends, that is rhetoric or public relations. Are you a commercial or do you have a cognitive opinion?

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

"I suppose you looked it up?" - no, I remember it quite clearly.

"Wait, isn't a third of that line mine?" - I know how you "progressives" love to recycle crap. But does make the statement any less true? Feel free to reiterate.

Re:Hard evidence

[uncqual]

I don't agree that Lincoln was the worst president that we ever had - indeed, I think he was among the better. This thinking is, however, based on an "ends justifies the means" analysis rather than a belief he should have done what he did the way he did it.

But, I am always amazed and saddened by the whitewashed version of history about Lincoln that is taught in schools. I suspect faced with a multiple choice test question of "Who said the following and subsequently affirmed it?":

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

that the vast majority of High School graduates in the U.S. would cross Lincoln's name off the list almost immediately while trying to determine the answer by the process of elimination. Of course, they would be very wrong to do so as Lincoln said just this (and affirmed it later) in the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on September 18, 1858.

Although, such a statement must be taken in historical context, to pretend that Lincoln vigorously championed equality between races (as many seem to think) is a fantasy.

Just a bit of historical reality to consider...

Re:Hard evidence

[cyphercell]

I will take that as a "no".

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

I'm sure you will take it to mean whatever makes you feel superior.

Re:Hard evidence

[Shakrai]

I find your views both unpatriotic and regressive.

I won't argue with you either way on 'regressive' but I'd love to hear an explanation for why it's 'unpatriotic' to tell you that your opinion of our President is higher than warranted.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Telecom Immunity Bill isn't even legally binding--congress doesn't have that power. If properly challenged, it'll fall like a house of cards.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

he he he he... you said hard. sorry beavis and butthead marathon goin on

Re:Hard evidence

[auLucifer]

As I've never been into the US or seen statues like that one (here in Australia we have big things like pineapples, cows and prawns ...) it really reminds me of a line in "The Emperors New Groove" with how the shot (might be just the camera angle) makes him appear to be an emperor:

Yzma barks, "It's no concern of mine that your family doesn't have ... what was it again ... food?"
The villager mutters something inaudible.
Yzma finishes, "Yes, well you really should have thought about that before you became a peasant."

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the tinfoil-hat brigade has mod points today, and they're using "overrated", the coward's method of choice for trying to suppress something they disagree with.

Get a grip, guys. Just because someone is not supporting every single crackpot and crank who accuses the gubbermint of spying on you with rays, doesn't mean their opinions should be censored. I thought censorship was bad? Apparently only when it's being done to anti-government comments...

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

It really comes down to the following difficult decision: who do you trust more. The last administration or a mid level NSA worker with little to no proof?

It's not even that. NSA is not staffed by Bush administration insiders, it's staffed by regular Americans who respect the Constitution just as much as anyone else. In fact, they're probably more patriotic than average, because if they were motivated by money rather than their desire to do something for America, then they could probably make at least twice as much in the private sector.

So, if they had really been ordered to carry out this kind of highly illegal and immoral activity, spying on Americans when their entire purpose is supposed to be spying on foreigners, spying on Americans when officially they take great pains to avoid spying on anyone who is in America or suspected to be an American abroad ... um, are we really supposed to believe that only one person there had any problems with that?

Occam's Razor says it's a bit more likely that he's angry because he was fired, so he's making baseless allegations for revenge. Or that he's an attention whore who loves the media exposure. Or maybe he's in it for the money... you betcha the tinfoil hat brigade will lap up his book when it comes out.

No, I don't think it's difficult to find an answer, when you ask the right question: who do we trust more, one disgruntled former employee, or every single other patriotic American who works for NSA?

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to say what's sadder - that you can only hold one thought at time or that it is a false one implanted by a fat radio host.

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

He, like Bush, did what he thought was necessary to preserve the Union. Unlike Bush, Lincoln actually accomplished his mission rather than furthered us along the path of ruin.

I can't say that I would have agreed with his stance or his ways, had I met him. But it's a lot easier to criticize with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

The primary difference between Bush and Lincoln is Lincoln actually had reasons for his actions, a real war to fight, and results where Bush had suspicions, two wars started by himself, and nothing but failures.

PS. The US government is chock full of Fasces. And while your description of them is accurate, you fail to point out that both his and the majority of the ones you see in the Capitol are missing their axe blade. Symbolically this is the acknowledgement that the true power rests with the People, not the Government.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

In 8 years you'll just be shouting 'Get off my lawn'.

And even with fewer fingers and teeth you'll still be mowing it.

Re:Hard evidence

[Icegryphon]

_______ won't be as evil as _______ but he's human and will be corrupted by the power he received. switch names around once. Really rather funny how in one breath you can make such a statement.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

I find the symbolism of much of Washington.. disturbing. Where as you say it shows the power rests with the people.. why are the people still then bound?

Regardless, that's of a minor issue. More to the topic, why do you believe the civil war was a good idea?

Let's pretend the South had never fired upon Fort Sumter. What then would be justification for open war with the South? (technically and legally the Unions occupation of Fort Sumter was illegal, but we can never mind that.) Why should states and the people in them be forbidden from leaving the union if they so desire?

What if the State of.. ohh I don't know.. Alaska, holds a vote and 90% of the people vote to succeed from the United States. In your opinion, is it a good idea to kill them to prevent them from doing so?

I believe if people can voluntarily form unions, then they can also disband them.. but it would appear it's not a voluntary thing.. at least not according to Lincoln.

Re:Hard evidence

[dangitman]

I don't think Bush was as evil as the left made him out to be.

"The left"? Seriously? Why do you use that term, when it's been obsolete for decades? Also, it's not just "the left" who think Bush was evil or incompetent, it is people of all political persuasions.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

He's selling a book and hoping for a movie. The mood of a liberal Congress may lead to more time-wasting investigations.

All for revenge over Clinton being impeached and hatred of George Bush. GET OVER IT! It's tiresome.

Re:Hard evidence

[Money for Nothin']

Because people cry tears of joy when Obama speaks? Particularly when he speaks about how he is going to fix this country, and the world?

Obama said it himself: people are ascribing their hopes and dreams on a man because he is a blank-slate in terms of experience. Excellent oratory combined with a feeling of unlimited possibility and a world populace whose economic fears now likely approach those found during the Great Depression are going to lead to people believing in exceptional powers in a leader and casting their every hope and dream to him -- unjustifiably, as the man himself has said...

Re:Hard evidence

[yakmans_dad]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature. It does say though that habeas could only be suspended during times of invasion of rebellion. The Civil War was clearly an instance of rebellion. Lincoln's suspensions were constrained as to time and geography. The arguments painting Lincoln as a usurping monster are purely rhetorical. The Bush suspension of habeas was the product of an attitude looking for an outlet, a bully looking for a weakling. Bush (et al) had a theory of the executive and wanted to exercise it. We aren't being invaded. There is no rebellion. There's no need to treat terrorists as something other than simple criminals.

Re:Hard evidence

[Shakrai]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature

I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)

Re:Hard evidence

[CrimsonAvenger]

"The left"? Seriously? Why do you use that term, when it's been obsolete for decades?

Because it's not obsolete. Any more than the Right Wing is considered obsolete by the Left.

Also, it's not just "the left" who think Bush was evil or incompetent, it is people of all political persuasions.

Nice change of parameters. First it was "evil". Suddenly, it's "evil or incompetent". I've never met anyone who wasn't fairly far out on the Left who thought Bush was evil. I've met a few others who thought he was incompetent, but I've never actually heard any real evidence.

Other than a litany of things he didn't actually do, of course. The favorite one down here is Katrina response. Of course, Bush had very little to do with the Federal response to Katrina. Which was NOT poorly done, for all the media would have it so. Having sat out Katrina down here, I've got a better picture of the federal, state, and local response than most of the media, and virtually all of the people who weren't actually present. And none of it was especially bad, given the situation.

A great President? Doubt it seriously. Worst ever? Doubt it seriously.

Re:Hard evidence

[dangitman]

Because it's not obsolete. Any more than the Right Wing is considered obsolete by the Left.

But they are both obsolete. "left wing" and "right wing" are terms based on the seating of the French parliament, and have no relevance to today's politics.

Your comment above shows the uselessness. The terms only matter to people who embrace those terms for themselves. And very few people do that. politics is a lot more complicated than two factions.

Nice change of parameters. First it was "evil". Suddenly, it's "evil or incompetent". I've never met anyone who wasn't fairly far out on the Left who thought Bush was evil. I've met a few others who thought he was incompetent, but I've never actually heard any real evidence.

Well, I've met people from both sides of the spectrum who think he's evil. Again, your false dichotomy of left and right is showing.

Again, why do you use these terms? What do you mean by them?

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

I don't believe the Civil war was a good idea, just an inevitable one. The South, as much as modern southern pride would try to claim otherwise, was just as eager as the North for blood. And, in our revisionist world where Ft Sumter never happened, there would still have been blood. The South was rich but not self-sufficent. It's industry was based on an unsustainable model and eventually they would have been forced to try to take Northern land simply to keep things going. Cotton, their primary source of wealth and power, is not a crop that is kind to the land. That was the one of the biggest fights between the Slavers and the Abolitionists, the fact that the South was aggressively claiming western lands to feed it's need for fresh soil. Remember what the Mason-Dixon line was about?

Regarding the right to secession, I imagine that particular difference of opinion will not be one that you and I will ever see eye to eye on.

But to redirect your question, if a group of paramilitary militia in Texas decide to secede from the nation and declare their land free of US law, would you let them? And if so, under what justification, given they are on US soil and benefiting from US protection? What claim do they hold that trumps the US Governments?

If one man can not secede, why can two? If two can't, why three? If not three, why a hundred? If not a hundred, how many must there be?

And you know as well as I, the argument is not "Kill them to prevent them from leaving." The South is still populated, yes a horrible, horrible number of people died. But they died on both sides, and not because one side was attempting to exterminate the other but because both sides were willing to send men into meat grinders rather than lose.

Re:Hard evidence

[Thing 1]

Perhaps I'm seeking an "OMG -1 troll" for this but in truth

No, but how about a "-1, Double posting for extra karma"?

See here and here...

Re:Hard evidence

[Thing 1]

Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.

Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory.

Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.

I agree with the other responder, and will ask: how many immunity bills have been passed in the last, say, 50 years, and what were the circumstances surrounding the need for immunity?

I mean, I haven't heard of the "Quilting Grandmothers Immunity Bill"... If someone is asking for, and receives, immunity, then there must be something prosecutable that they are needing that immunity to protect them from. Or does the US government really just go around granting immunity to pleasant folks?

Re:Hard evidence

[Lord Flipper]

Our Savior, the Almighty, the All Powerful, the One, Barry.

Did you by any chance notice Obama's consistent use of the word "we' in those statements? Didn't think so.

The Republicans destroyed so much of our country, it's certainly understandable that they might feel a "savior" is necessary, at this point. Although a remedial reading instructor might be more helpful, in your case.

Mr. Obama has been quite clear that change requuires participation on the local level. You know, like "interactive" as opposed to sitting on your ass and letting others dictate and/or do everything for you?

Re:Hard evidence

[Lord Flipper]

too much power for any single human being to weild ...

  and

he's only a small cog

That would be "wield", I believe. And secondly, which is it Mr Wizard... a "cog' in a larger power structure, or a vessel of some gargantuan "power" as you put it?

I love it when you guys that think you're a factor, or two, smarter than you really are decide to toss up conflicting generalities and un-documented over-simplifications of people and events that you clearly have no grasp of, whatsoever. Thanks for your, uh ... , "contribution" to the bullshit factor.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

its not that obama is corrupted just because he's human and its too much power...

its because to actually become president you need an obscene amount of money. You have no choice but to accept PAC money and whatever other money can come your way, from groups of extremely wealthy people who do not have the common mans interests at heart...when you get to this level and your talking about so much money..these groups want things in return for their "money".

because you need so much money, Its impossible for 3rd parties to even enter the debates, let alone compete. This last election there are 3rd party's who raised 35 million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money? thats chump change to what is needed...its actually a 1 party, 2 factions system...thats why the dems and reps really arnt that different when you look at all their policies. sure there are 'some' differences...but they actually agree on most things when you take a step back and look at it all...2 factions, 1 party, disguised to look like 2. Where you are screwed either way, because obama, bush, all of those - front men...they do not control the economy. IF you control the economy you control the country, presidency doesnt mean much except that your in charge of selling what your told to sell by the men who control the economy.

Kennedy tried to print money interest free to the american tax payer, cutting out the reserve banking cartel of rothschild's and rockefeller's and other investment bank groups who are charging us interest to print our own money. He wound up dead. if obama was remotely honest, he would be looking at this issue as one of the ways to reduce america's debt. The reason countries are always in debt is because of this reserve banking system...its impossible to actually get out of debt to them when you are paying large amounts of interest just to print your own goddamn currency. The constitution is being violated here and people are so stupid they cannot see it. ONLY congress is supposed to print money, not some private investment bank cartels who have been manipulating the world economy for a very long time getting everyone in debt to them and causing these drops in the markets so they can buy up large amounts of wealth cheeeeep and become even more powerful...waaaaakkkkkeeeee uuupppppppppp!

Re:Hard evidence

[Hal_Porter]

Look at this

http://www.slate.com/id/2146475/
To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his "report" to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie's denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix's commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had "sought" uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visit - this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001 - has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movement - the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission - are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

Re:Hard evidence

[Hal_Porter]

I do like the idea of NSA types working in a "black tower". Very Tolkien.

Maybe it's partisan of me, but I've seen Olberman ranting like Bill O'Reilly and now I just tend to ignore what he says, just like I ignore Bill and Rush.

Plus as you say, this interview doesn't seem to contain anything particularly sensational to me. At this point I'd be very surprised if the NSA weren't searching wiretaps for keywords and data mining credit card records.

Re:Hard evidence

[Hal_Porter]

If you post comments on sites like Indymedia debunking their paranoid worldview they allways get removed by a moderator. Conspiracy theorists are in practice much keener on censorship than the governments they rant against.

What's ironic about this is that it shows what a threat to a free society these people are. Now this sounds like a conspiracy theory in itself on the surface but consider. Marx had a very conspiratorial view of democracy, he claimed that it was manipulated by the bourgeoisie, hence the term 'bourgeois liberalism'. When Marxists came to power in Russia that gave them a theoretical justification for repressing the whole bourgeois class. Similarly Hitler thought that society was manipulated by the Jews and thus tried to wipe them out when he was in power.

Cliques of people that all believe in some powerful group manipulating society will always go after that group once they are in power.

Of course at the moment the conspiracy theorists are divided and are marginalised politically because most people simply laugh at them, but I'd say the government is right to be keeping tabs on them to make sure they stay that way.

Re:Hard evidence

[sumdumass]

The telecom immunity bill provides absolutely no protections for this guys new claims. If it's ringing a bell, it's the end of the round.

In fact, the immunity bill didn't provide any immunity that wasn't already there but incapable of being realized because of classifying the paperworks under national security secretes.

Re:Hard evidence

[sumdumass]

Actually, left and right wings are used in today's American politics to describe opposing sides of ideology.

Words and phrases can have more then one meaning. They often do. Take red for instance. It could mean a color or an insinuation of being communist. And yes, I know the communist part comes from the red flags.

Re:Hard evidence

[sumdumass]

What's false about it?

I remember Frank saying just days before Fannie needed bailed out that they were in fine shape and people should invest with them.

I also remember Bush calling for regulations on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003 then republican senators in 2005 and again in 2007 all getting shot down or lost in commities that Frank and Dod chair. I'm not sure how Obama enters the mix outside of being one of the few senators getting campaign finance donations from Fannie and Freddie.

Re:Hard evidence

[nemoest]

I think many people forget that Lincoln was a politician. Politicians by nature try to build the largest coalition possible to enable them to win in an election. At the same time one has to remember during the Lincoln-Douglas debate:

1) Douglas explicitly stated, "I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes the Negro man or the Indian as the equal of the white man."
2) Lincoln did express some white supremacist ideas during the debates because he was campaigning in Southern Illinois, but compared with Douglas he was by far more on the side of equality.
3) I cannot state this better than the book, Lies My Teacher Told Me:
Lincoln's ideas about race were more complicated than Douglas's, however. The day after Douglas declared for white supremacy in Chicago, saying the issues were "distinctly drawn," Lincoln replied and indeed drew the issue distinctly:
I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it--where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is not ... true, let us tear it out! [Cries of "no, no!"] Let us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then.

Those hardly sound like the words of someone who wasn't having some deep thoughts about equality, but I agree he didn't vigorously proclaim it explicitly from the mountaintop while campaigning for President the first time. His ideas on race grew during his Presidency, and this is one of the great reasons he was such a good President.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

I think the answer is let them Secede. what makes their land "US soil" if not the will of the people? Then treat them as appropriate. Border off their "country", require duty and taxes paid on imports, or even fail to negotiate a trade treaty or travel agreement with them.

If they are able to stand on their own without those things, then maybe you treat them as a real country. If not, their "country" falls, and you re-annex.

no need whatsoever for violence to make people do things against their will that are, and should be, only a matter of choice.

More important is how do you know if they decide to secede or not? That can only be done in a populace large enough to vote democratically with any moral authority. So if my Town or state holds a vote on the matter, and the people of Maine vote to Secede... at a high enough level to modify the constitution, for example... then who the hell is anyone to say we can't? The feds could then take all of their hardware out of here and let us do our thing.

On what moral grounds, exactly, would the feds be able to stop a democratically justified secession?

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree that Lincoln was the worst president that we ever had - indeed, I think he was among the better. This thinking is, however, based on an "ends justifies the means" analysis rather than a belief he should have done what he did the way he did it.

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now ask yourself, if the person you believe would be the worst president ever took office would you want them to have any of the powers exercised by previous presidents?

Do you still think we live in a free nation as intended by our forefathers? The term wage slave is the first that comes to my mind but it should read "bank slave" to be more accurate. You work for pay but who really hands you cash either directly or indirectly? The bank. You can only buy large items in one of two ways, savings or loans. And guess where the only place you can get both is...

Re:Hard evidence

[yakmans_dad]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature

I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)

That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.

Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.

Re:Hard evidence

[hesaigo999ca]

His evidence went up in smoke, when they gave him his pink slip and had 2 escorts make sure he did not leave the building with anything pertinent. He would have to have been smart and stash evidence before he left, but sounds to me like he talks about this, after the fact...

Re:Hard evidence

[BoothbyTCD]

'Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom' - Barak Obama

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

Make no mistake, he uses "we" in the royal sense.

Just look at his recent statements on the CEO bonues revelation. Are they obscene? Yes. Are they inappropriate in these times? Yes. Are they any of Obama's or the federal government's business? NO!

He has two options. First take back any bail out money those corporations recieved, then STFU. Option two, STFU.

Politicians caused the problems we are having today with the Lend to anyone who can breath regulations (Community Reinvestment Act) and then shooting off their mouths and causing runs on institutions (Barney Frank anyone?)

"We" will not recover from this Charley-Fox through the divine intervention of your patron saint Barry, but through the hard work of American business left free to do their jobs.

FDR could not spend out way out of the depression, neither can Barry.

Re:Hard evidence

[Shakrai]

The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.

I don't think the problem is a 'cowardly' Congress per say. That Congress (with much the same leadership and members) had no problem standing up to Clinton when he was POTUS. I think the problem with Congress is one of a problem with political parties -- the GOP Congress was all too happy to rubber stamp most of GWB's agenda. Think they would have rubber stamped the same policies if it was a Democrat President pushing for them?

So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel?

I don't think he's a "monster" per-say but it's rather hard to deny the fact that he effectively ended the sovereignty of the individual states and vastly expanded the power of the Federal Government. It's up to the reader to decide whether or not that's a good thing.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, he cites no real specifics in these cases, not a shred of *actionable* evidence, only vague and overly-broad allegations, all given in a conspiracy-tinged "dramatic" way.

The monitoring rooms are there this has been verified. So if the rooms exist what other reason would they serve except to spy on US Citizens?

So you work at Ft Mead. How does it feel to be a traitor to the Citizens of the US?

I know just "doing my job" this is what you say but you made the choice to work there so you are as guilt as anyone that works there. It takes a real scumbag to spy on their neighbors.

Have you ever considered to get a real job?

There isn't enough money in the world to get me to work where you do. I have respect for my neighbors. I have respect for my own self.

Think about if everyone refused to work for the NSA there would be no one breathing heavy in the middle of my Internet connection.

Re:Hard evidence

[Lord Flipper]

Make no mistake, he uses "we" in the royal sense.

I see, I didn't realize we were talking with a mindreader or someone who was otherwise privy to the President's thoughts and motives. Thank you so much for that. Actually, your delusion, cited, fits in pretty well with your stunted, delusional world view as a whole. But I'll tell you what: The fact of "consistency" in your delusions of "insight" and "pronouncements" [Patron Saint my ass] actually makes your getting psychiatric help all the more urgent.

Don't worry, the other patients in the mental ward will probably nominate you for 'god' if you can just keep reciting your pathetic, worn-out revisionist republican talking points over and over. You're my Patron Saint of the Retarded, now. Nice goin', asshole. Oh, and by the way, loser, WE won. So kiss my fucking ass, you poor, shallow, unoriginal toad.

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

what makes their land "US soil" if not the will of the people

What makes the land you stand on anymore yours than mine? A deed? And what does that deed say? Ever hear of eminent domain?

That land was 'ours' far longer than it was 'yours'. People died protecting it, hell there were multiple wars fought to keep it. We've spent millions (possibly even billons) developing and improving it. And you think you have the right simply to 'walk away' with it? By what right? That you managed to be squirted out of your mom in the general location some number of years ago? What have you put into it that outweighs the investment of twenty plus decades that our nation has put into it?

It's far more than simply "the Feds pull out their equipment and leave".

Regarding your second statement, ultimately, that is the problem with the way most people aggitate for secession. You claim you have the majority support, but what you really have is the majority of a minority of the nation.

If you were to actually convince the majority, then there wouldn't be a problem. If the majority agreed, there wouldn't even be bloodshed. But instead most secessionists act as if it's only the opinion of the secessionists that counts.

It'd be different if you were saying these things back in the 1700's. Back when the entire world wasn't already completely staked out and claimed. But today, if you want your own nation, go make it. Don't expect us to give you part of ours simply because you happened to live in it when you were still willing to be part of us.

In that respect, people peacefully 'secede' from nations all the time. The US has a bounty of folk from other countries that have foresaken their citizenship and seek to become part of ours.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

I specifically talked about a democratically determined secession for larger groupings. I.E., the people of Maine vote in large enough numbers to change our state constitution, and secede from the union we are currently a part of.

It sounds as if you agree with me that if that requirement is satisfied, then it's ok for states to secede. Yes? That we are a part of this union by our collective free will, which can be revoked. Bear in mind you are talking about a country that violently overthrew the former government which developed and explored this "wild" land for three hundred years before they decided it should, instead, be ruled locally. What gave them the right? Might of arms, apparently. I prefer democratic, non violent determination myself.

As for the smaller scale individual secession, sure, you could make some sort of case for property rights being guaranteed by the state, but in the end, what is the point of violent compulsion? If I decide to take my land and secede, let me. What's the difference? If I can't behave like a real country, on my own, then I fail and can get re-absorbed. So what? Is it really necessary to attack me?

And why on earth does it make things ok because western nations "staked out" land that was previously each other's or other nations' entirely, for them to hold it forever? Whoever stole it first keeps it forever?

I agree that most secessionists (and most idealogues of any sort) have some notion that they are really "the majority" even when they are not, and I harbor no such illusions. However, I do firmly believe in the RIGHT of free association, and the right to revoke that association, and that countries boundaries are not sacrosanct forever just because someone decided to take some amount of land from someone else two hundred years before I was born... or 50... or yesterday.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

The state of the souths economy would have been just fine if it wasn't for the restrictive tariffs the north imposed (and intended to impose) upon them. Lincoln blamed the recession of 1857 on the south. "Vote yourself a tariff" was actually one of his campaign slogans. If you can fairly export than you can buy whatever you need from others, there is no reason to go to war if you can fairly trade with others, but that kind of trade policy was not advantageous to the northern states. A one size fits all trade policy could not work (thus that in itself is an argument for peacefully dissolving the union.)

But to redirect your question, if a group of paramilitary militia in Texas decide to secede from the nation and declare their land free of US law, would you let them? And if so, under what justification, given they are on US soil and benefiting from US protection? What claim do they hold that trumps the US Governments?

I don't know why it matters if they are "paramilitary militia" or farmers.. but..

Legally, I believe it comes down to the fact of land ownership. In the United States it's impossible to own land in an allodial title because all land in the united states is subject to expropriation by the federal government (by eminent domain under the 5th Amendment.) I believe Texas is one of those states that will allow an allodial title, but I believe the Federal government could trump it. In order to actually own it they would have to sign a treaty with the United States government granting them sovereignty over that land....... however... In the case of the Lakota Indian tribe, they have presented a case that shows the Federal Government has violated the former treaties signed them and that they retain the sovereignty of their land in breach of those treaties. Landholding before the creation of a state or even the united states *are* recognized by law. So I think they have a much more reasonable case than a "paramilitary militia" group. You can look into that here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah It's really kind of interesting how they are attempting to go about it, and yes I actually support them in doing it, I'm originally from Montana and I can tell you there are few people there that see anything good at all from the federal government. .. So far the Federal Government has ignored them, and Lakotah has stated they will not attempt to use force.. so this should be interesting..

So legally there is some problems, but morally, I absolutely believe it is right.. Those people did not agree to the Constitution, and governments should be voluntary. I'm sorry if that throws a big kink in the whole works but this is what I believe is right. I don't believe it's right to forcefully control others or force them to adhere to your rules and laws. You can act in defense against an aggressor, but when you encourage force or enforce laws that 19 century philosopher Lysander Spooner would call a vice, or crimes that have no true victim, on unwilling people then YOU become the aggressor. I believe that it's wrong force on other men? Am I in error for that belief?

And the argument is indeed "kill them to prevent them from leaving" For if those "paramilitary militia" people intend to defend themselves and "their" land from the aggression of the state.. they will be killed. Your not allowed to say no to the government. If you do, at first they will threaten you and fine you, if you continue to say no, they will send men with guns to your house and attempt to put you in a cage.. if you fight those men and continue to say no.. they will kill you. Don't pretend that our government is not capable of barbaric acts of violence against people.. because it is.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

Just a small note:

Sea Steading is a real idea.. http://seasteading.org/ (run by Patri Friedman, grandson of Milton Friedman) and as early as *last year* Montana threatened to secede.

WHEREAS, when the Court determines in Heller whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right, the Court will establish precedent that will affect the State of Montana and the political rights of the citizens of Montana;

WHEREAS, when Montana entered into statehood in 1889, that entrance was accomplished by a contract between Montana and the several states, a contract known as The Compact With The United States (Compact), found today as Article I of the Montana Constitution;

WHEREAS, with authority from Congress acting as agent for the several states, President Benjamin Harrison approved the Montana Constitution in 1889, which secured the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly intended as an individual right and an individual right deemed consistent then with the Second Amendment by the parties to the contract; ............
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the undersigned members of the 60th Montana Legislature as follows:

1. That any form of "collective rights" holding by the Court in Heller will offend the Compact; and .........
4. Montana reserves all usual rights and remedies under historic contract law if its Compact should be violated by any "collective rights" holding in Heller.

Holey crap, way to go Montana!

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

Maine = 1 state out of 50.

Even going just by states and not populaltion, what is a majority in that secnario?

Hint, it's not 1.

Have 26 states vote to let Maine go, and we can talk about having majorities, though personally I'd prefer you go the "Congress" method and make it both a majority in states and population.

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

So legally there is some problems, but morally, I absolutely believe it is right.. Those people did not agree to the Constitution, and governments should be voluntary. I'm sorry if that throws a big kink in the whole works but this is what I believe is right. I don't believe it's right to forcefully control others or force them to adhere to your rules and laws. You can act in defense against an aggressor, but when you encourage force or enforce laws that 19 century philosopher Lysander Spooner would call a vice, or crimes that have no true victim, on unwilling people then YOU become the aggressor. I believe that it's wrong force on other men? Am I in error for that belief?

Who am I to be the arbitrator of what beliefs are correct or not. Yours are not mine, and that is all I know for certain. Which is why I originally stated I doubt we would ever see eye to eye on this matter.

Governments are formed for the benefit of the people. All the people. When a select group, who have been benefiting from the labors of the people and their government, seek to reject it, then in my opinion it is their burden to find a peaceful solution to that rejection. Whereas the majority of secessionists basically exhibit the attitude that once they 'break' from us it's up to us to deal with it.

And while my argument concerning land may have sounded purely legal, it is also based in morals. The land you stand on today is the result of hundreds of years of effort put into this nation by the people before you. To up and claim it simply because you happen to be standing on it today is the equivalent of theft, to me. If you don't want to be part of us, that's fine. As you've pointed out, there are ways to go where you don't have to be part of any nation, much less ours. But don't start taking what isn't yours.

But for what it's worth, I agree with your opinion of the Lakotah.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

I'm not talking about other states deciding its ok for another state to go. I'm talking about maine people, voting in a maine election, to adopt a new Maine constitution. If the people of maine, as a whole, do not want to be a part of america anymore, by what moral standing does any other state have to force us to stay? Because people associated with massachuesetts were the last ones to steal this land from someone? Because those people had joined the united states? Because PREVIOUS maine residents petitioned to become a state and succeeded, abrogating the rest of us of OUR rights of free association forever?

If Puerto Rico votes to become a state tomorrow, that means they can never choose to change their mind?

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

Again,

..., ultimately, that is the problem with the way most people aggitate for secession. You claim you have the majority support, but what you really have is the majority of a minority of the nation.

If you were to actually convince the majority, then there wouldn't be a problem. If the majority agreed, there wouldn't even be bloodshed. But instead most secessionists act as if it's only the opinion of the secessionists that counts.

You've just demonstrated the problem beautifully.

Do you just get to walk into the capitol building and say, "Top of the morning to you chaps, I'd like to join!" to become a nation?

Then tell me why leaving would be any easier.

Joining a nation means you benefit in that nations power, it's resources, and it's laws. You aren't just picking up a new flag and anthem.

By allowing you to join, the nation is in essense investing part of their efforts in your future. Why would you expect to be able to, after benefiting from all that, suddenly turn around and say "No thanks guys, I think I'll go it alone now." without someone speaking up?

That isn't to say that you shouldn't be allowed to say it, but it is to say that once you've committed to join a nation, it isn't just you that your decision to leave should be run by.

Re:Hard evidence

[homer_ca]

What a deal the CEOs got. When drug dealers get immunity, it's only for full cooperation and testimony.

Re:Hard evidence

[spun]

Now you've just gone off the deep end and lost all credibility you might have had. This is a sadly typical example of the right wing's use of what is know as 'thought terminating cliches.' You have added nothing to the conversation but bile and insult, with the intention of getting someone to attack you, just so you could pull out this tired old counter. You look like a fool to anyone with half a brain, because your tactics are completely transparent and childish. You need to wor on your sophistication if you want to be a really successful right wing troll. But sophistication has never been the right's strong point, has it?

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

Spoken like a true left wing snob.

I guess you must be one of those with half a brain since you saw right through it eh?

If you engage the other half of your brain and follow the thread you will notice that to start with, all I did was express an irreverant opinon of Barry that did in fact answer the question posed. From there is was just a bunch of spittle from folks who thought entirely too much of themselves.

I guess Barry is sacrosanct on Slashdot. Too bad. I was hoping I could throw out a bunch of posts that merely said "Fuck Barry" and I would get modded Insightful.

You guys need to lighten up. You have 4 years fun filled years to go! If this is how you react just a few days into Barry's term, you'll all be dead of strokes and heart attacks soon.

Re:Hard evidence

[k1e0x]

This conversations pretty old and .. I only have a short bit to add a guess and that is.

If it's true that I somehow owe people before me for the "security of" this land, or something like that.. I'm not actually able to repay that debt to them as they are dead and gone. I don't believe collectives exist outside of the individuals that make them up so I couldn't possibly owe a debt to the general abstraction known as "the people". I mean.. if it's a real debt.. how much is it and who exactly would I pay it too?

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

You, yourself?

I'd say nothing. That's why there isn't anything stopping you from leaving and starting your own micronation out in the middle of the Pacific or seeking citizenship status in Japan.

That land you want to 'take with you' because you aren't willing to leave but still don't want to be part of the group?

That's something you'd have to negotiate for with the government acting as the represenative of the "People", and I'm willing to bet the government values it far more than the 'blue book' price. And there have been cases, where that's been done, just none that I can recall since 'modern' times and few that were done with just individuals.

Re:Hard evidence

[spun]

Shakrai posted an irreverent opinion of Obama and got modded +5 insightful. You posted a childish insult insinuating that he thinks he is the messiah and that his supporters worship him and you got modded down. The mod system works, intelligence is rewarded and trolls are punished. Personally, I think Obama is completely centrist. He's no savior, and he's certainly not leftist at all. He'll do okay, but he won't do anything radical or new. I love to see intelligent criticism of him. You haven't provided any. All I see from you is frothing, impotent rage at having 'lost.' You rightfully had your ass handed to you on a platter, and now, like any hypocritical bully who's victims dare fight back, you scream and cry like a little girl.

Re:Hard evidence

[dangitman]

Actually, left and right wings are used in today's American politics to describe opposing sides of ideology.

GOSH really!? My point is that it's used in a completely meaningless way. Can you tell me exactly and succinctly what the terms mean?

Political ideologies are much more complex than a simple left/right split, and many of today's "right wing" have things in common with what is traditionally the "left wing" and vice versa.

Re:Hard evidence

[sycodon]

Elections come and go. In four or eight years, Obama will be out and someone else will be in, probably a Republican. Then we'll see all the folks on Slashdot who expressed outrage that anyone should make fun of Barry will start right in on whoever his replacement is.

Don't try to read any intelligence into this mod system. All it takes is a few assholes who don't agree with you to mod the post into oblivion. Odds are if I posted the same thing on a different day then the modd would be different.

If you don't think that a substanital numbers of his supports worship him then you haven't been paying attention. Hell, just watch Chris Mathews. Tingle up your leg anyone?

Or just look at anyone who says "It's ok to be patriotic now" or "It's OK to be an American now". What bullshit.

And Barry is not Leftist? Fuck, what are you smoking? Look at who he hangs with. Look at the pork laden bullshit "Recovery act" he's pushing. Yeah, condoms and STD prevention will create millions of jobs. Look at what he said today about the bad evil corporations. It's fine for him to have an opinion, but then he follows up with "we'll be having a conversation with them". Who died and made him chairman of corporate America?

And if you hear any screaming and crying, it's your own. I'm having fun here.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

obviously we have a disagreement on whose majority is important.

let's put it this way: I have a company. I am 50% owner with another fellow.

For someone to join us, we require full agreement between both of us. I cannot hire someone without his ok. However, for someone to leave, only one of us... OR the employee... has to say so.

this is a direct analog: we have provided the employee with lots of training, educational opportunities, wages, and access to information they are unlikely to get much anywhere else. Being with us is a benefit to them, for sure, and it's a risk for us. Which is why it should be hard to join. But by being hard to join, THAT is the appropriate amount of protection. THAT is the time to go to great lengths you are choosing a new member wisely.

But it is NOT an excuse for me to, stay, force an employee to stay with violence, even if the employee is critical to my current operations. Neither could my other employees, who depend on their now well-trained co-worker to keep this company profitable for their profit sharing checks, force them to stay because his or her leaving would be a detriment to them.

the employee stays because he or she wishes to. It would be called slavery if it were anything else between an individual and a company: it should be called certainly NOTHING LESS if it happens between a town and a state, or a state and a country. If the country does not serve the needs of ALL of its member states, they should.. democratically, on their own terms... be able to "seek employment elsewhere".

I see no way in which this analogy is faulty or not a direct correlation. I'm open to hearing an alternate view of course, but be sure that whatever measure you choose to apply is defensible right down to this personal association level. Otherwise, I suspect a "special standard" which requires some modification to truly fit with anything I would call "moral".

Re:Hard evidence

[spun]

Just keep telling yourself that it's all asshole moderators picking on you. Of course, that doesn't explain why Shakrai was modded UP for his anti-Obama comments. You can also keep telling yourself that people worship Obama, it's still a right wing country, people just were hypnotized into voting against their interests. Yeah. Your self serving theories are a transparent attempt to make yourself feel superior. You come off sounding quite delusional, and a little paranoid. Oh, and that bailout plan? Yeah, didn't, what was his name? Bush? Didn't he start that whole ball rolling? And if the president wants to have little talk with Wall Street leaders, more power to him. I hope they do limit executive pay for any company taking our money, but as I said, Obama is no leftist so I sincerely doubt that will happen. Funny, we both dislike Obama, just for entirely the opposite reasons. FYI, you may want to watch the Daily Show election night coverage, they had Obama's law school adviser on. He thought Obama was a Republican when they first met because Obama idolized... wait for it... Reagan! So don't worry, no matter what your dear leaders on the right say, he's no leftist.

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

To map your analogy of a company into your hypothetical of Maine attempting to secede, we need to make a few corrections.

1. Maine isn't an employee. They are a 2% shareholder and have a seat on the board of directors.
2. Maine isn't leaving, it's attempting to split a division off from the company, claiming the 2% share it holds entitles it to 2% of the company.

Maine doesn't get to do that. Not without a vote from the board of directors, whose job it is to watch over the whole company, not just Maine's division. Maybe they are willing to spin the division off because they don't see it's loss threatening the whole to do it. That's happened. Plenty of companies have been formed out of divisions of bigger companies. Or, maybe the board isn't willing to let Maine have it's division. Maybe this is a division integral to the company. But whatever the case, it's the board's decision, not Maine's alone.

Maybe that division is staffed with people who are all for the idea. Employees who would really love to split off and form their own company. But that doesn't matter.

If they decide to all quit and leave company to form their own, that's one thing and they have the freedom to do that. And in the real world, that's happened plenty of times. But that means actually leaving the company (with all that entails), not simply taking the assets of the company and using them to form your own.

Re:Hard evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods don't pick on people, they pick on opinions. Just go talk a peek at the article about the Volcanoes. I knew some idiot would make jokes about Palin and another idiot would mod him up. Sure enough, a whole series of posts dumping on Palin and they were, when I looked, modded as 5.

Shakrai was modded up because thankfully there are also slashdot folks who don't have their heads up Obama's butt.

I don't get my news from the Daily Show. You shouldn't either.

As for the Bailout plan, yep, Bush caved and the moron Democrats in congress went happily along. Now they are look to one up the last catastrophe. Except this time they have free rein to put all kind of crap in that has nothing to do with jobs.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

that's pretty good, but there are disconnects your analogy as well: the state could return any asset that isn't nailed down or planted. the only thing it can't do is return money already spent or give back infrastructure, but again, that is the same kind of investment a company makes with personnel; if a division were abused by the parent company and everyone DID leave, they are still walking away with lots of value the company invested in them, regardless of how much a company invested in them or would be hurt by their departure: their option to leave trumps that vested interest.

Of course we could extend this metaphor further and argue about copyrights, NDAs and non-compete clauses, and such, and things will get very murky from here on in. I'm satisfied with you having expressed a reasonable point of view on the matter though (thanks, it's more than I expected before and I have a better perspective now), though I still find the underlying idea rather disgusting.

It seems to boil down to this idea of ownership, you see removal of maine as removal of a part of what the united states rightfully owns. So what is your argument that the american revolution was just? Simply the fact that the "tyranny" experienced did not have a somewhat democratic system behind it? Or do you believe it was not just at all and instead, a bunch of thuggery and theft, as you seem to indicate such a move (even peacefully executed) by a state today would be?

Re:Hard evidence

[Chyeld]

You once again forget that the state pretty much is the asset. That land you are standing on, it ain't yours.

Re:Hard evidence

[rhakka]

Feel free to answer the question about the revolution.

America did not create Maine out of thin air, nor does Maine exist because of america; the land which is maine was habited long before america was dreamed of. so by what moral justification, exactly, does the most recent landlord demand special privilege to be the final and sole owner now and forever simply because it was the last one strong enough to take it by force by those weaker than it? If you regard that as a moral justification, then you are apparently saying the only morally justifiable way to secede is via war. but that's not what you're saying?

ultimately all I am saying is that if the will of Maine is expressed democratically, it should be respected, rather than requiring the use of violence to sort out the situation (as it was in bygone eras especially). not that our view absolves any and all obligation, but that the details which should be objectionable would be the TERMS of secession... not the secession itself. that is, all the other states should be able to negotiate the price of withdrawal for the non-land assets of the state, but the fact that the state is comprised of land is not, in itself, a reason to prevent a secession. and an unacceptable term of secession (such as no, we are not going to give you the battleship we just built for you, loaded with nuclear missiles) might be cause to declare WAR between two countries...but not a reason to prevent secession itself, just a reason for the seceding country to negotiate in good faith.

Re:Hard evidence

[Kashgarinn]

"the gov no longer works for us, it thinks we work for it."

- classic republican nonsense.

I've always wondered why there hasn't been a book detailing how the republicans and their rhetoric about government being bad actually implements itself when they are in power.

Everytime the republicans are in office, they abuse the power, everytime. Everytime the democrats are in office, they right the wrongs of the republicans and try to develop a better society for everyone, just ripe for the neo-con republicans to scare people into voting republican again and letting the super-rich rob everyone all over again.

Wish someone more knowledgeable than me could finally go through the data and just display it in black letters on white paper how the differences in thinking between republicans and democrats actually means that everyone suffers when republicans are in power, and everyone gains when democrats are in power. There should be enough historically proven statistics, I'd just like it if certain bad ideas that keep occurring again and again get squashed, no matter in what corner the bad idea is from.

Re:Hard evidence

[slashdotwannabe]

Obama said it himself: people are ascribing their hopes and dreams on a man because he is a blank-slate in terms of experience.

People are ascribing their hopes and dreams on the man because the country is so fucking desperately jacked up from 20 years of Republican Presidents spending us into oblivion they need that kind of hope.

1984

[Phoenixhawk]

1984 was a Typo

Re:1984

[mcgrew]

Orwell was an optimist.

Re:1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, he could give eye exams too?

In other news...

[the_humeister]

Russell Tice found dead by apparent "suicide" in his residence.

Re:In other news...

[Thanshin]

"Suicide by gunshot from outside his car with the windows closed. "

"Suicide by shotgun in the middle of the back."

Both real cases if I could bother to find them. As I won't, only the conspiracy theorists will believe me.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the second news report says he was killed by a rogue weather balloon.

The confusion came from the way the weatherballoon had snared itself four times around the neck before being blown (man and balloon) into the highest tree in the area.

The government is quite clear at pointing out that no government officials was in the area when this tragic accident happened.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like a certain Clinton lawyer! Who "suicided" in a park.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof?

Re:In other news...

[HadouKen24]

Fantastic! Not only do we learn about all the mysterious deaths the Clintons were involved in, but we learn that "The USA is under occupation by Satanists in the White House."

I might be willing to pay attention if the site were a wee bit more credible.

Re:In other news...

[coolsnowmen]

That is a list of names with no proof at all. Start doing web searches on the first couple names and it will quickly become apparent(you could start with the snopes entry).

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a report that a convict being moved from one cell to another shot himself in the back twice while trying to escape.

True story.

While being moved from one cell to another with his hands cuffed behind his back and hobbles on he grabbed the sheriff's gun from his holster. Then backing up after the grab he hit the wall causing the gun to discharge while pointed roughly at his back, in the fall to the floor the gun went off again sending another bullet into his back.

true story I swear

  sorry off topic I know but what the hey!

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the case of suicide by shotgun to the back. The forensics report says the guy tied it to a tree, tied a string to the trigger, and walked or ran away from it.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118609086/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

No

[Bovius]

Congress will not follow his suggestions. That would be the shocking news story.

Why does Obama support this?

[DoofusOfDeath]

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama hasn't been flat-out lying about his desire for a government that obeys the law, then does anyone know why he supports this kind of BS?

So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Spazztastic]

p>So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in. And I voted for him.

It's been only a week. Don't you know how slow things move with the government?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[squiggleslash]

What makes you think he does?

We've had one Slashdot story claiming that he does that turned out to be complete bullshit, the words of a Bush-appointee who hasn't left yet being put in President Obama's mouth that themselves didn't say what the story said it did, and that certainly wasn't about bugging the phones of journalists.

I'm not optimistic that Obama is going to haul those who made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitution over the coals, but it's a little too early to be sure he isn't going to, and it's highly improbable he'll follow in Bush's footsteps.

Wait and see.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Shakrai]

Don't you know how slow things move with the government?

Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Spazztastic]

Don't you know how slow things move with the government?

Ding, ding, ding, mod parent up. Whether or love Obama or hate him expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.

This is going pretty OT, but it's going to bite him in the ass when he's running for a second term and people are asking why he didn't change everything he promised.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Covert Penguin]

I'm skeptical of any politician. However, I'm willing to keep an open mind for a while longer on Obama.

Consider that he may only now be privy to information/intelligence that scares him as much as it did Bush/Cheney. Not that I agree with the policies of the previous administration; I'd like to think that change might be delayed because of some information Obama hadn't been previously party to, and he's still trying to determine the most appropriate long term solution for.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[mpapet]

Get involved in local politics. It is the best cure for your distaste for politicians. After that:

1. Change at the executive level is slow no matter what. An aircraft carrier doing a U-turn is nimble in comparison. 4 years is very, very little time to affect much change.

2. The notion that this administration will act more lawfully than the last is a matter of interpretation. Bush #43 acted lawfully. They started with the notion that the Office of President has unlimited powers, so everything they did was "within the law." Every administration has their own interpretation of "lawful." Don't pin your vague notions of lawfulness on the current administration. It will only lead to disappointment.

It will only be a matter of time before any group wanting to discredit the current Administration finds an issue that will provoke outrage and foster disaffection. You would do well to keep that in mind.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Chyeld]

It'll only bite him in the ass if the only thing his administration is known for by then is his campaign promises.

People forgive not being perfect if they perceive you are not just doing 'the best you can' but actually having an effect.

The folk who won't forgive him regardless, frankly are the same folk who will be gunning for him no matter what.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had one Slashdot story claiming that he does that turned out to be complete bullshit, the words of a Bush-appointee who hasn't left yet being put in President Obama's mouth that themselves didn't say what the story said it did, and that certainly wasn't about bugging the phones of journalists.

My head just exploded.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[shentino]

Congress has the power to obstruct everything obama tries to do. Just like Gowron trying to force Martok into no-win battles, Congress can make obama look bad pretty easily.

If he's smart, he'll call for america's support and ask them to pressure their reps in congress not to stonewall him. Then, if his programs don't go through, he can blame congress for sticking a big fat foot in the way and tripping him up.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Zordak]

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama hasn't been flat-out lying about his desire for a government that obeys the law

Why would we assume that? This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.

For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it. He's a politican. Politicians lie. They are, in large part, corrupt, morally bankrupt, bought and paid for, and self-serving. And the higher up the ranks you go, the more likely that is the case. In fact, that may be the only way to get to the top spot anymore. I would love to live in a world where that's not the case, but I don't, and neither do you.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[philspear]

So far, I haven't seen any change I can believe in.

Not to make excuses for politicians, but it's not as if the entire intelligence community gets changed with each changing administration, especially not within the first few months.

Obama does still have to work with these people to keep the nation safe. Most of the people working in the CIA, NSA and whatnot did not start when he did. Making dramatic changes immediately and offending them from day one would be a pretty stupid move.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[squiggleslash]

Not entirely sure why the above was moderated "Troll", but given the AC's response, if the issue is the second paragraph, then the false Slashdot story is here, and the debunking is here and here.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[fotbr]

In other words, we (the people) should (according to Obama) want Congress to be his rubber stamp, instead of the previous administration being Congress's rubber stamp.

Honestly, I'd prefer them to argue and compromise, instead of either branch running roughshod over the other. That whole checks and balances bit, if it hasn't been completely thrown out with the rest of the constitution.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[geeknado]

Not if he delivers on his promises within a reasonable window of time or can defer blame for his lack of delivery to a reticent congress. The very fact that we're talking about his prospects for re-election _10 days_ after he assumed office illustrates why it's so difficult for politicians to do anything meaningful. Yes, no one's life is magically better because Obama is now in power. This is in no way a surprise.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 years is very, very little time to affect much change.

You mean "effect much change".

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Eil]

I think it's time we contain the optimism and start looking a little more critically at our new president. I voted for him and I believe he's the most intelligent and charismatic leader we've had since I've been alive, but thus far his pattern of leadership has been (perhaps with the exception of Gitmo) to simply give everyone whatever they're asking for. Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.

And let's not forget that Obama was the one who supported the FISA amendment which, in addition to granting the telecom industry immunity from lawsuits for breaking privacy laws, also allows the government to wiretap without a warrant or court approval for up to a full week. Of course, it's hard to say where he'll stand on it now that he's president, because he was against the bill when running against Clinton, yet supported it when running against McCain and I can't tell that the bill changed during that time.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[SnarfQuest]

expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic.

Have you seen the number of "executive orders" he's written already? The cost of these orders will soon exceed the entire budget of Bush's entire presidency, including the cost of the Iraq and Afgan wars. He's already allocated billions each for free abortions and voter fraud groups.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think he does?

Because he voted for a bill which:

• Prohibits the individual states from investigating, sanctioning of, or requiring disclosure by complicit telecoms or other persons.
• Permits the government not to keep records of searches, and destroy existing records.
• Protects telecommunications companies from lawsuits for "'past or future cooperation' with federal law enforcement authorities and will assist the intelligence community in determining the plans of terrorists."
• Removes requirements for detailed descriptions of the nature of information or property targeted by the surveillance.
• Increased the time allowed for warrantless surveillance to continue from 48 hours to 7 days.
• Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
• Allows eavesdropping in "emergencies" without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

Sounds pretty "What 4th Amendment?" to me.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[fahrbot-bot]

expecting real change on a ship the size of the Federal Government in ten days is pretty unrealistic

I think I saw that movie, with an iceberg, violins and Leonardo DiCaprio not dying nearly soon enough (like 5 minutes into the film) - or something like that.

Except in this version, I think the Captain responsible has just managed to escape on his own life raft... The next reel should either be very exciting or very, very sad. I expect popcorn sales to sky-rocket.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Agilus]

What about the order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility over the next year?

What about his executive order disallowing any interrogation techniques not defined in the Army Field Manual (i.e. no waterboarding, no torture)?

What about telling the EPA to look into letting California define their own, stricter auto emissions standards (instead of locking them to the federal standards like Bush did)?

What about signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act just yesterday?

What about striking down Bush's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information? You could make an argument about abortion here, depending on which side of the issue you stand, but this money is also used for other medical procedures performed by these organizations.

He's done more good in one week than GWB did in 8 long years.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are a fool.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[lawpoop]

Is he running for a second term next week!?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[coolsnowmen]

...the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government....

William Lynn, while working as a lobbyist recently, ALSO was the most recent Undersecretary of Defense under a democratic president (Clintonâ(TM)s second term). He was nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Hmmm, he was an undersecretary of defense under Clinton, now is a deputy secretary of defense. I wonder how he got the job- could it be that he was qualified?!

I don't know much about the other, I'll have to check it out later today.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[ultranova]

This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.

Change of opinion is change, right ?-)

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Zordak]

Hmmm, he was an undersecretary of defense under Clinton, now is a deputy secretary of defense. I wonder how he got the job- could it be that he was qualified?!

He may well be, and that's entirely irrelevant. If Obama wants to just hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of industry ties, then do it. But don't first go on this grandstanding routine about "This is a new era of ethics. We're not going to do all that shady stuff other administrations do like hire lobbyists." If being a lobbyist so utterly taints a candidate that it cannot be ethical to hire him, then make an unbreakable commitment to not hire lobbyists. If, on the other hand, being a lobbyist is irrelevant to whether a person is qualified and/or ethically-sound as a candidate, then don't say those dirty former presidents were evil for hiring them. In other words, pick a side, Prez. Don't tell us former presidents were evil for hiring lobbyists, commit to not hire lobbyists because you're not evil like they were, and then hire lobbyists with a wave of the hand and an excuse that, "well, these lobbyists are qualified."

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Beezlebub33]

Do you have a citation or link for these claims, or are you just making it up as you go along?

Yes, there are a number of executive orders that modern presidents sign on Day 1. It's both symbolic of the direction they want to go, and to get things moving in their direction.

"billions each for free abortions and voter fraud groups."

Executive orders are official documents of the United States, and are recorded. I realize that it's almost certainly out of date, but something similar to what is at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/2009-obama.html might be useful. Which one of these gave billions for the subjects above?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[geekoid]

Things move pretty quick most of the time in the government.
Yeah, a week isn't really a rational amount of time.

I doubt he voted for him, or anybody, becasue he's so quick to complain...but has no specific complaints.

finally, the tilde repleces other punctuation. for example:
You don't type "Watch out.!"
You can type "Watch out." he yelled or just "Watch out!"

So for the tilde you could do "Watch out!" he said sarcastically, or just "Watch out~"

Of course I don't know why your yelling your sig in the first place.

Thanks for using it.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

He's done more good in one week than GWB did in 8 long years.
Depends on how you define good. Allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats determine how cars should be made, and possibly funding thousands of abortions against the vehement objections of those who pay taxes might not be considered good. But we shall see how it all turns out.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Abcd1234]

Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.

And the shutting down of Guantanamo, and the outlawing of torture in the military.

It's been a mixed bag, certainly, but it hasn't been all bad.

And for the record, no one believes this kind of deficit spending is sustainable in the long-term. But the point is to not have to do it for the long term...

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's time we contain the optimism and start looking a little more critically at our new president.

I think it's time we contain the cynicism until he actually does something. I see nothing snarky crap about Obama and how the sky isn't raining puppies yet. Enough already.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[BlackSnake112]

Well if this second bailout gets passed we the people have a $1.6 trillion bill to pay on top of all the other debts.

I would have rather seen a better use of the remaining part of the first bailout package and repayment by the companies which got funds then a second package.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[mattwarden]

And where were you when reasonable people were saying just this during the campaign and all of the people high on Obama asked us to stop killing their buzz?

Now that he's president and people are coming down back to reality, all I hear are Obama supporters trying to teach me how slow government is. Are you serious? I was trying to remind you (collectively) of this a couple months ago and you didn't want to hear any of it.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[CodeBuster]

on a ship the size of the Federal Government

Which is the true problem and the real reason why change, when and if it eventually comes, will be modest, limited, and mostly cosmetic. Obama will learn quickly (if he doesn't know already) that even the power of a President is limited and particularly so when he attempts to tack against the prevailing winds generated by the special interests.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's time we contain the optimism and start looking a little more critically at our new president.

Oh really? Maybe you could have, I dunno, maybe you could have like maybe sorta kind of possibly begun to muse about maybe vaguely considering beginning to perhaps speculate just a little bit about sort of briefly looking a little more critically at him *BEFORE YOU ELECTED HIM TO BE THE PRESIDENT*?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[dangitman]

For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it.

And who would it be that believes that? Artie McStrawman?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like there was an alternative. Whatever Obama does, it won't be as scary as electing someone who thinks Jesus rode dinosaurs.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[dbcad7]

Two private corporate bailouts, one FISA bill, and almost a trillion in new spending. This cannot be sustainable in the long term.

Ok, the "two" bailouts were under the Bush administration.. and actually it was one bailout in two batches of spending..

I don't know about you, but my thoughts on the whole wiretapping thing has become this.. We need to obey the Constitution and require warrants for wiretapping going forward.. I realize quite clearly how wrong the previous administration was, but I don't see any benefit to a witch hunt against people following the directions of a corrupt administration.. How much would be spent on this ?.. I fully expect that the current administration will make appropriate changes to insure things are done by the Constitution going forward.. If they don't then they deserve the fallout.

The new stimulus package.. I don't know.. I hope it will help.. everyone should hope it will help.. This catch 22 problem is tough.. In order for the economy to improve people need to work, in order for people to work the economy needs to improve.. perhaps if we forcfed investors and CEO's anti-depressants things might get better.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[smoker2]

So you're in favour of allowing corporations the freedom to continue polluting everybodys environment because it's cheaper than building cleaner cars, but against the personal freedom to have an abortion because it might cost a tiny amount of tax payers money ?
Consistent.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[sumdumass]

Do you really think that corporations will miss a single dime of profit if the pollution standards increase?

All they will do is jack up the costs to consumers which means less of them will be able to afford them. The companies who aren't already operating at a lost (which seems to be none of them at this point) will go out of business making more people poor. That all that will happen.

You come across as if these corporations are attempting to sneak an extra $10 past you or something. That simply isn't the case. If the tech was here, they would probably already be using it. You can't magically say let there be cleaner engines and poof, it happens.

BTW, I'm against abortions too. It's because it seems to be targeted at minorities and the people who some elitist bullshitter's think are less desirable. Look at planned parenthood, they won't even set an abortion clinic up unless more then 20% of the local population is black. Black Americans are the only group shrinking in size as a percentage of the population because of abortion. Granted they actually grew in percentage wise from 2000 to 2008 but only by 1.2% when they were projected to grow around 4% by 2010. That's quite a lot of niggars getting killed because this way is legal genocide.

Sure, we need to send condoms and birth control to those filthy savages in Africa and everywhere else they deem not worthy of a strong and numerous population and convince them to abort their future. Of course you got the religious whackjobs saying that life begins at conception so now we counter with saving the lives of the worthy who can pay for stem cell procedure by using the aborted cells. It all a racket and only a small minority of abortions are performed to save human life, the rest is to rid society of the undesirables and the crap they might start. Supporting abortion is something we should really be proud of.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[instarx]

You certainly aren't very creditable a fact-giver. First, the two corporate bail-outs (loans), to GM and Chrysler, were made under the Bush administration. Neither did Obama give the auto industries everything they asked for when he signed the new efficiency standards - in fact they're suing. Neither did he give the Republicans everything they asked for when he refused to overload the stimulus bill with more tax cuts. He has also refused to give the left the political payback to republicans they wanted.

And anyway - since when is not giving people what they want considered to be success? If the majority of Americans support government stimulus, and Obama does that, you somehow interpret that as a failure.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[instarx]

Politicians often lie about things, but this is a HUGE policy and philosophical position. I find it hard to believe that Obama would lie and that he really, secretly wants a government that doesn't obey the law. I think that's nonsense.

And although I'm not happy about the Raytheon lobbyist, there is a huge difference in having TWO ex-lobbyists in the administration and the hundreds that went through the lobbyist revolving-door that was the Bush administration.

Its like me saying my car is clean and you coming along and calling me a liar because there is a little dirt in the wheel-well.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Hal_Porter]

Like there was any alternative. Whatever Hitler does, it won't be as scary as the Jewish Communists who eat bread baked from blood of Aryan children

Oh and

http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2006/07/john-mccain-on-evolution.html

"I think Americans should be exposed to every point of view," he said. "I happen to believe in evolution. ... I respect those who think the world was created in seven days. Should it be taught as a science class? Probably not."

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Walkingshark]

What color is the sky in your reality?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[draggin_fly]

WTF? In his first days, he ordered the shutdown of the CIA's secret prisons and the closing of Guantanimo Bay. Did you not believe in that?

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[draggin_fly]

He also instituted new limits on lobbyists in the White House and put a freeze on White House salaries. And we're just talking about the first couple of days, here.

Re:Why does Obama support this?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

So you're in favour of allowing corporations the freedom to continue polluting everybodys environment because it's cheaper than building cleaner cars
No, I don't like those who nothing about science deciding the most environmental cars are those who burn corn based ethanol or some other boon doggle.

Corrupt CEOs

[BigHungryJoe]

Is there any doubt left that the corporate aristocracy in this country is rotten to its core?

Re:Corrupt CEOs

[jeffasselin]

It's not rotten, it's in fact a very well-functioning oligarchy.

Re:Corrupt CEOs

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the only group which is more corrupt is the elite at the top of the power pyramid (government) who make it all possible. Without them, the corporate aristocracy wouldn't exist.

Cue daveschroeder

[Reality Master 201]

Come on Dave, where's the long screed defending the Bushies?

apparent "suicide" twice ...

[rs232]

"Russell Tice found dead by apparent "suicide" in his residence"

Yea, would that be two gun shots to the head, as the first one didn't finish him off .. :)

Re:apparent "suicide" twice ...

[davidsyes]

And, like Vince Foster, the hand/palm prints will exibhit that Tice has a tentacular-like 6' arm...

But, even if Tice has evidence that the ISP and bank CEOs know something, cheney and company probably put them under a "lifetime non-disclosure order/national security letter"...

Re:apparent "suicide" twice ...

[TheGratefulNet]

nah, cheney will just invite him out for a hunting trip.

you'll never hear a peep from him after he opens the invitation. some letters can be more chilling than National Security Letters..

Re:apparent "suicide" twice ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He will apologize to Cheney in a "My bad" kind of way though.

Re:Why don't they make the NSA tell the truth

[Bovius]

I direct you to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#In_the_United_States

Quote: "In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit."

Congress is part of the government and is exempt from this immunity, but they haven't done anything yet about this, and this whistleblower doesn't seem to be the kind of source they jump on.

Yeah, you drank the coolaid

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Nothing has changed. The Obama administration is continuing to advance the same legal arguments the Bush administration used.

In all fairness we might consider withholding final judgment for a while, but so far all indications are that the 4th Amendment will continue to be ignored and the executive will continue to assert that it has limitless unbounded inherent powers which are subject to no review or check of any kind.

Heil Obama!

Re:Yeah, you drank the coolaid

[spartacus_prime]

The last sentence destroyed your argument.

Re:Yeah, you drank the coolaid

[radtea]

The Obama administration is continuing to advance the same legal arguments the Bush administration used.

Empiricism puts the lie to your lies: "In a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after September 11, 2001," the Post added."

Obama isn't a saint, and I haven't said he is. But is Obama better than Bush by any number of substantive measures, just a week or two into his first administration? You bet he is.

Re:Yeah, you drank the coolaid

[Kashgarinn]

I get the feeling that Obama just did what any sane person would do when you have a ton of horseshit on your lawn and you're on a 2 hour deadline; instead of arguing whose fault it is and making sure that the Bush who dumped a ton of horseshit on your lawn gets properly penalized for it (and thus you have no time to actually clean up the horseshit within the deadline), you realize that it's you who'll in the end have to clean it up, it's you who want to clean it up, and it's something you have to do before the deadline.

Face it, Obama got Bushed, and instead of attacking, he's cleaning the shit up, and he's a better man for it. Finally a president I really like. Finally the united states are normal again, can't wait for the rest of what he'll do.

If true, you can stop blaming BOOOOSH!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

No way that crap happened without Democrat complicity.

At least Bush didn't lie about where he stood.

Re:If true, you can stop blaming BOOOOSH!!!

[Rob the Bold]

Your honor, I should be found not guilty because the cops were eating donuts while I committed the murder.

Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said this before and will say it again in response to this retard; To have the level of overarching view this guy claims to have, he'd have to be Director of NSA (DIRNSA). I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career. This guy is full -o- shit.

Re:Once again.

[mcgrew]

I've said this before and will say it again

Well, Mr. Coward, you do post more often than anybody else at slashdot. Your UID must be what, minus five hundred?

To have the level of overarching view this guy claims to have, he'd have to be Director of NSA (DIRNSA)

You, perhaps?

I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career.

Why would you expect us to believe that?

This guy is full -o- shit.

He's putting his name on his accusations, you aren't. Who do you think is more credible?

Re:Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly, Sir, you are a master of logic and debate. And I would point out that I, like so many others posting on this thread, value my anonymity and exercise it at will.

Re:Once again.

[Rob the Bold]

I, like so many others posting on this thread, value my anonymity and exercise it at will.

We have also assigned a value to your anonymity.

Re:Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career"

Working the Starbucks near Fort Meade doesn't give you intel experience.

Re:Once again.

[UncleTogie]

I have been around NSA and the Intel world my entire career.

The first rule of Fight Club: DON'T talk about it.

Re:Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I, like so many others posting on this thread, value my anonymity and exercise it at will.

We have also assigned a value to your anonymity.

That value varies highly. Slashdot is oh so protective of their rights to privacy, oh so protective of the right to post anonymously on the internet. (Check past topics for proof of this.)

But post anything that offends the herd mentality on slashdot and watch your post be modded to oblivion if you posted anonymously.

Re:Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have also assigned a value to your anonymity.

You have assigned a value to generation of a login via registration. At the time of Slashdot's rise, registrations were like gold (pre-dot-com bust - not so much now a days). I'd venture that many of the truly anonymous posters have logins. The "Anonymous Coward" moniker is simply an immature prank that - at one point - served the economic interest of those who cashed in.

Re:Once again.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of good reasons to post anonymously in a thread like this. One big one is that you aren't supposed to brag to the Internet (or anyone, really) that you handle classified data. Among those who have the clearances you need to do work for the three-letter-agencies, there's a strong taboo against revealing anything at all. You don't even talk to people 'read in' on the same program unless you are in the particular areas where those conversations are allowed to happen. It doesn't matter if you need TS/SCI to step foot in the building, you still don't talk in the halls.

I've skipped over many conversations where I could not offer any insight without coming across as a troll because I couldn't explain how a poster did or didn't know WTF they were talking about without explaining how I knew better. Which, of course, I could not do. There's just about nothing more wankerish than trying to make an authoritative statement by saying "I know X, but I can't tell you how I know it." Something similar goes for the occasional story on Slashdot where they are talking about something that I know is classified. Publication doesn't equal declassification, and I sure as heck wouldn't contribute by confirming or denying anything I shouldn't.

This kind of story is the rare case where the people who know what they are talking about are probably posting anonymously.

Re:Once again.

[kayditty]

we? who the fuck are you? I value his anonymity about as much as I value your "non-anonymity" or anything else: not at all.

Re:Once again.

[kayditty]

He's putting his name on his accusations, you aren't. Who do you think is more credible?

the guy with verifiable information?

Re:Once again.

[mcgrew]

[citation needed]

Most media outlets ignoring this

[ISurfTooMuch]

It's interesting that most media outlets are ignoring this. Of course, it took them a little time to get onto the original NSA/AT&T story, which broke online (at Wired, I think) before it went mainstream. When I read it online, I made sure to send messages to several media outlets, including CNN, about this. I never got any replies, but it was nice to see them pick up on the story, and I like to think that maybe I helped the process along.

What I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't hurt for some folks here to take a few minutes to contact one or more news outlets and send them links to the video interviews on MSNBC, Wired articles, etc. Whether this story is real or fabricated is unknown at this point, but it's potentially big enough that it needs wide coverage.

So let's all send this in to CNN, the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. and see if they haven't covered it because they aren't aware of it or because they're deliberately ignoring it.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[Anonymous Coward]

Major new outlets have a responsibility to confirm stories before reporting them as fact. This usually means hard evidence or at least independent corroboration of the story. We've seen nothing of the kind here, and thus it is on a Wired Blog that has no real need for any of that silly fact checking stuff.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[Bob-taro]

It's interesting that most media outlets are ignoring this.

Yeah, you'd think the "specifically targeting journalists" part would garner some media attention.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[lawpoop]

I don't know why more people are shocked about this, but this goes back to Jan 2002, when Admiral Poindexter was putting together the Information Awareness Office, which ran the Total Information Awareness program. It was going to be a big aggregate database of all electronic data about everyone. Think of it as a big social network with all of your communications, financial records, legal records -- every digital record. The program was supposedly canceled after public outcry. It looks like, in light of recent revelations, the program just went into black ops or whatever you want to call it.

And what did the original seal of the OIA depict? An All-Seeing Eye, on top of a pyramid, with the wording Scientia est Potentia -- "Knowledge is Power". Are we then to conclude that Total Information Awareness means Absolute Power? ( It looks like its gaze falls directly over the United States )

I voted for Obama, but now I am utterly uninterested in having my medical records digitized.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[Duhavid]

Or scare them off.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[lanner]

I can't imagine the typical connoisseur of consumer television having the intellectual or emotional maturity to understand or care about such issues.

Re:Most media outlets ignoring this

[Uberbah]

I don't know why more people are shocked about this, but this goes back to Jan 2002, when Admiral Poindexter was putting together the Information Awareness Office, which ran the Total Information Awareness program.

Probably because Congress specifically denied any funding towards the TIA. However, it's been alleged that some administration officials started on something like TIA pretty much as soon as Bush & Cheney took office.

Still More Surprises

[mpapet]

This has been a likely scenario for quite a long time. The transactional data cooperation most likely predates Bush #43. It is the simplest reason for the decades of wanton privatization of transaction processing and personal data warehousing.

The collective shrug of the shoulders in Congress should surprise no one. Most of all, it should come as no surprise to anyone hanging around slashdot.

The notion that your daily life is somehow private should have died about 15 years ago.

Re:Still More Surprises

[triffid_98]

I suppose it all depends on how motivated one is Michael.

And whether those new webcams in your office are working...

The notion that your daily life is somehow private should have died about 15 years ago.

Re:Still More Surprises

[mangu]

It is the simplest reason for the decades of wanton privatization of transaction processing and personal data warehousing.

And what would be the alternative to privatization? Let some government agency do the transaction processing and personal data warehousing. Like, let's say, the NSA?

Re:Still More Surprises

[mpapet]

And what would be the alternative to privatization? Let some government agency do the transaction processing and personal data warehousing. Like, let's say, the NSA?

That would be against the law. Which is why letting a commercial entity do the work of collecting/processing and then working with the collected data is perfectly legal and standard operating procedure.

Treason is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of this is hold over from the Bush admin, the DNC will make this guy a hero if it is true.

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome our new telecom/credit card company/major database holder overlords.

cuckoo...

Re:Hard evidence... by extension...

[davidsyes]

"People are saying this guy was just a mid level analyst. Does he have any hard evidence or is he just drumming up publicity to sell a book?"

could be converted to:

Slashdot is repeating the story of what some "People are saying this guy was just a mid level analyst." Does Slashdot have any NEW hard evidence or is it just drumming up a recycled story to publicish astory?

(LOL)

We need investigations

[Bemopolis]

This is exactly what someone would say if he were a disgruntled ex-employee fired for insubordination.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were flogging a book.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a partisan hack who did not like the previous administration.
and
This is exactly what someone would say if it were true and he were loyal to America rather than the party in power at the time.

Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does.

Re:We need investigations

[BlueStrat]

This is exactly what someone would say if he were a disgruntled ex-employee fired for insubordination.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were flogging a book.
This is exactly what someone would say if he were a partisan hack who did not like the previous administration.
and
This is exactly what someone would say if it were true and he were loyal to America rather than the party in power at the time.

Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does.

Not disagreeing with you. However.

The problem isn't this particular politician or that individual bureaucrat being corrupt. The problem is much, much larger than that. The larger any government is, the more wealth it controls, and the more power it has over the people it governs, the more corruption there will be. Period. It's just human nature.

You can pass all the laws against corruption you like, try to implement all the oversight you possibly could, but as long as the government keeps growing in size and scope, controlling ever more areas of its' citizens' lives and controlling ever more vast sums of wealth, the problems will persist and get worse.

Every time another government program is started, new department created, new entitlement set forth, government corruption *will* grow along with it. It's as unavoidable as entropy.

Every time government is asked to assume a new responsibility or provide a new service or entitlement it also increases the power and wealth it controls and along with it the opportunities and incentives for corruption. This is why the founders of our country envisioned/intended a small, relatively weak federal government with barely enough revenue & powers to accomplish only the bare necessities of a central government.

At this point in our history, government has grown so large and corrupt that I believe that it is in a feedback-loop that will only be halted when the whole country collapses from governments' weight and devolves into chaos. It won't be pleasant, likely very, very bloody with staggering numbers of deaths, and makes me glad I'm rather old as I'll hopefully be dead before the collapse happens. Although it may well be closer than I or anyone else suspects.

Strat

Re:We need investigations

[iztehsux]

I don't think anyone (regardless of how disgruntled they are at the NSA) would be dumb enough to make these accusations. Certainly not for publicity or to sell a book. Just because they silently monitor communications doesn't mean an unmarked van can't pick you up and perform some rubber hose cryptanalysis. As much as I'd like to believe that Tice is full of it, if I were him I wouldn't give details either. I think he's telling the truth, but God knows he's under surveillance up to his eyeballs and if you say too much, it's a good way to make your ass disappear. Then again if you say too little, people accuse you of spewing generalized statements with too little detail and the NSA probably figures "nobody will believe him" to the serious extent we are all looking for in great detail.

Re:We need investigations

[MrNougat]

The problem isn't this particular executive or that individual board member being corrupt. The problem is much, much larger than that. The larger any corporation is, the more wealth it controls, and the more power it has over its customers, the people it employs, and the government it lobbies, the more corruption there will be. Period. It's just human nature.

You can pass all the laws against corruption you like, try to implement all the oversight you possibly could, but as long as the corporation keeps growing in size and scope, controlling ever more areas of people's lives and controlling ever more vast sums of wealth, the problems will persist and get worse.

Every time another corporate venture is started, new department created, new tax shelter set forth, corporate corruption *will* grow along with it. It's as unavoidable as entropy.

Every time the public demands that corporations assume a new responsibility or provide a new product or service it also increases the power and wealth it controls and along with it the opportunities and incentives for corruption. The founders of our country envisioned/intended a small, relatively weak federal government with barely enough revenue & powers to accomplish only the bare necessities of a central government. Unfortunately, this allows supercorporations to run amok.

At this point in our history, corporate America has grown so large and corrupt that I believe that it is in a feedback-loop that will only be halted when the whole country collapses from the weight of the "executive class" and devolves into chaos. It won't be pleasant, likely very, very bloody with staggering numbers of deaths, and makes me glad I'm rather old as I'll hopefully be dead before the collapse happens. Although it may well be closer than I or anyone else suspects.

Re:We need investigations

[Anonymous Coward]

"Either a lot of Bushies need to go to jail, or Tice does."
Or both.

Re:We need investigations

[Anonymous Coward]

>Or both.
But not necessarily all for the same reason.

Re:We need investigations

[BlueStrat]

The problem isn't this particular executive or that individual board member being corrupt. The problem is much, much larger than that. The larger any corporation is, the more wealth it controls, and the more power it has over its customers, the people it employs, and the government it lobbies, the more corruption there will be. Period. It's just human nature.

You can pass all the laws against corruption you like, try to implement all the oversight you possibly could, but as long as the corporation keeps growing in size and scope, controlling ever more areas of people's lives and controlling ever more vast sums of wealth, the problems will persist and get worse.

Every time another corporate venture is started, new department created, new tax shelter set forth, corporate corruption *will* grow along with it. It's as unavoidable as entropy.

Every time the public demands that corporations assume a new responsibility or provide a new product or service it also increases the power and wealth it controls and along with it the opportunities and incentives for corruption. The founders of our country envisioned/intended a small, relatively weak federal government with barely enough revenue & powers to accomplish only the bare necessities of a central government. Unfortunately, this allows supercorporations to run amok.

At this point in our history, corporate America has grown so large and corrupt that I believe that it is in a feedback-loop that will only be halted when the whole country collapses from the weight of the "executive class" and devolves into chaos. It won't be pleasant, likely very, very bloody with staggering numbers of deaths, and makes me glad I'm rather old as I'll hopefully be dead before the collapse happens. Although it may well be closer than I or anyone else suspects.

While I agree that corporate corruption & power is also a huge problem, I believe that it is largely a symptom of a too-large and powerful (therefor corrupt) government. The government has grown so huge that there are simply too many avenues by which unscrupulous players can influence government politicians, policies, and laws to be able to control by oversight.

If the government were not so large and therefor corrupt, the laws already on the books concerning monopoly & anti-trust, financial responsibility and honest accounting, and consumer rights would get enforced rather than given lip-service, and corporations wouldn't be able to exert the level of influence & power over politics and lawmaking that they currently do.

Strat

Re:We need investigations

[Atario]

At this point in our history, corporate America has grown so large and corrupt that I believe that it is in a feedback-loop that will only be halted when the whole country collapses from the weight of the "executive class" and devolves into chaos.

Or, we could start enforcing anti-trust law again.

Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW!

[aquatone282]

Oh, wait. . .

Re:Impeach Bush/Cheney NOW!

[dkleinsc]

Yeah, all we could do now is prosecute them and possibly throw them in federal PMITA prison.

A rehash

[DesScorp]

This is just another rehash of the same Olbermann interview... and like the previous one, he still doesn't offer any specifics.

Duuh, looks like he's lying

[Cathoderoytube]

This guy doesn't come off as credible at ALL. He reminds me a lot of those UFO nuts who can go on at length about secret cover ups and the like, but can't actually give any proof. Always some sort of excuse.

Re:Duuh, looks like he's lying

[wytcld]

He's not saying, "Look in Area 51 and all will be revealed." He's saying, "Haul these CEO's in to testify." Now, there are real questions of whether the technology is even plausible for interstellar travel - there's pretty good physics that says you can't get from one star to another in reasonable time with reasonable energy expenditure. But the technology for spying on us? Come on, there's enough technical expertise even within the community reading this thread to build, link, and mine the databases as it's suggested the NSA, phone and credit companies have done. And I'm sure some of us have pitched such designs to the government - direct knowledge, I know at least one guy who has, and got a contract from the pitch, pre-9/11. There had to have been hundreds, even thousands of pitches to and within the government to set up more of this stuff after 9/11. Now, on what reasonable basis do you believe the Bush administration wouldn't have bought some of these pitches? Our confidence that such programs are in place should approach unity. Talking to the CEOs whose cooperation would be required to pull this stuff off is a good place to start uncovering them.

Re:Duuh, looks like he's lying

[Cathoderoytube]

That's a complete strawman argument. I wasn't arguing against the existence of the technology of spying on people I was saying this guy doesn't seem credible based on the lack of evidence. He makes a lot of vague statements that people, especially on the network he's being interviewed on are more than willing to believe. No different than a UFO proponant making their claims to a sympathetic audience. Doesn't mean either is telling the truth though.

Re:Duuh, looks like he's lying

[m509272]

Sure and all these businesses that are cooperating have managed to silence any employees working on any of this versus this mid-level NSA analyst, soon to be author.

Moron

[stewbacca]

NSA non-disclosure agreements don't expire for 99 years, so how does this guy get away running his mouth?

Re:Moron

[Zolodoco]

Because he's not disclosing classified materials. If the NSA does something illegal, they have no protection against someone disclosing that activity beyond the usual intimidation and threats they'll make to shut people up. That's why we have whistle-blower laws.

Re:Moron

[stewbacca]

Well until you've read, understood, and signed an NSA nondisclosure agreement, you really don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Moron

[Holi]

and I would have to say nor do you.

obama is better then bush,

[cinnamon colbert]

just today signed bill strengthing anti pay discrimmination law; I know, I know, it is a small step that still leaves the burden on the employee, but there will be a lot of little things like that the will help
also - i think this is important- the POTUS, in toto, has a LOT of jobs at his disposale - not just direct appointees, but 2o and tertiary appointees that add up to the 10s of thousands; with obama, this will mean defunding of the right wing wackos and more money to the right people; the net effect is big and important

Re:obama is better then bush,

[Anonymous Coward]

He needs to use his awesome power to send new teachers to the school in which you were educated. Then, you wouldn't type things like "in toto, has a LOT of jobs at his disposale".

----
Idiots for Obama

Re:obama is better then bush,

[sumdumass]

Isn't discrimination on pay already illegal? So what good would another law do and how is that important?

BTW, the right wing that you believe needs de-funded by the president (the president shouldn't be doing anything to any political wing) believes that enforcing the laws on the books helps more then having new laws that don't get enforced. And no, Bush was no Right wing, he's a moderate.

Re:obama is better then bush,

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I guesss "right wing " is in the eye of the beholder.
You are however, wrong on teh illegal pay thing - A law was just signed by Obama; I believe the details have to do with how many years can elapse between the discrimminatin and the victims lawsuit; in this case, the victim had no way of finding out she was underpaid untill many years had gone by; the supreme court, several years ago, said that she had no standing.
this has been in the news quite a bit recently.
as for the right wing believes in enforcing laws, without a lot of research to back up either of us, i disagree

Re:obama is better then bush,

[Anonymous Coward]

I just found out about the extentions on the length of time to file suit today.

As for the right wingers, you don't have to take my word for it or do extensive research. Just look around at slashdot, you will see admittedly liberal (progressive is the new worD) people claiming that right winginer are a bunch of authoritarians who want to make laws and rules and make people follow them. It seems to be one of the main things the left hates about the right. I'm just taking their views on it.

Timing

[Phoenix666]

I've been holding my fire until Obama gets his AG pick confirmed, and the stimulus package passed. No one can expect anyone, even Obama, to change the course of justice overnight. And we do have many pressing issues that must be dealt with now.

But the Senate committee just voted to confirm Holder, and the vote on the general floor is expected to confirm him as well. And the House just passed the stimulus package by a large margin; it looks like it's on the road to passage.

So those two factors, plus the absence of a single Republican vote in support of a response to our national economic emergency, despite Obama's kowtowing to the "concerns" of Republicans, gives me hope that a proper, deep, wide, and comprehensive ass-kicking is coming from the boots of Lady Justice.

If not, then we have definitive proof that some people ARE above the law, and that the law therefore applies to no one. And it becomes the right and duty of the American people to punish their representatives accordingly.

I am starting to wonder

[Sycraft-fu]

Initially I really didn't question his story, in part because I can really see this kind of thing out of the previous administration, in part because there's been real evidence of domestic wiretapping. However as he keeps "revealing" more and more, I'm wondering more and more if he isn't making it up. Not the whole thing, of course, but large parts of it. You know something like the NSA did domestic wiretaps, which it shouldn't, but they were in fact tightly constrained to only targeting terrorists and only monitoring overseas communications. However that doesn't get enough people interested, so he starts making shit up.

Obviously I don't know either way, but my BS detector is going off more and more. I have a distrust when someone keeps revealing "better and better" information about something as time goes on. Why would you do that? When I drop the hammer on something, I do it in one big chunk. I'll tell you everything I know about it. Reason being is I want you to see how bad the situation is. I want to present all the evidence so you'll go "Wow, we really have to fix that!"

Well this "Slowly releasing more, bigger, juicer info," thing strikes me like, well, like marketing. It is the same sort of thing companies do to hype a new and upcoming product. As such I'm starting to really wonder about this guy. Why is he acting like a salesman, unless he's trying to sell something?

Hi Walt!

[Anonymous Coward]

How's it going?

Re:Hi Walt!

[EQ]

LOL! If you only knew. But I'm not there anymore (wish I was still there, in a way. job security, ya know).

P.s. I love the "Flamebait" mod someone applied to my post above, gave me a laugh today.

I wonder if its someone at NSA all squirmy over my calling it "Black Tower" (see Tolkien), or a conspiracy guy pissed at me for debunking a pet bete noir of his.

Gotta love Slashdot mods, they're +1 Funny!

What possible incidents from NSA data mining??

[HongPong]

Ok my question is can this /. community isolate or expose the methods of what the NSA has been doing, and has the NSA been feeding these data mining systems into other areas of the government or military?

Specifically you guys should look at US NORTHCOM (northern command), Homeland Security dept, and the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency. I strongly suspect that these groups put together have fed illegally obtained data into the law enforcement apparatus (the NGA and NORTHCOM had a presence at the Republican National Convention here in Minnesota - these are military agencies!)

NGA's website talks a lot about the data feeds they create for the NORTHCOM/DHS National Incident Management System (NIMS). We could easily find that various events like raids were generated via illegal data mining... Where is the manifestation of law enforcement ACTIVITY from data mining collection??

How to approach this systematically, that is what I'm asking you folks about.

Documentation

[handy_vandal]

If I remember correctly, during the first round, Tice provided technical docs for the machine doing the tapping.

When a wolf bites a sheep

[muckracer]

...does anybody expect any different? There they are, in glorious white, baah'ing around, nicely together as one big feast to be torn into and devoured.
Such is the pitiful state of our communication and personal data. Can we complain if we get bitten by the wolves when we present ourselves/our lives on a silver-platter?
We know they are out there...and have long been way before Mr. Tice and his revelations. So why do we still make phone calls in the clear, why have we as techies not managed to protect our e-mails, our Instant Messaging, our chats...nevermind made it happen for the public at large? We still pay with credit cards, documenting our habits, buying preferences, physical locations with every slide-through. We carry cell-phones and feel almost elite to carry particular models, despite them being roaming bugs and real-time location-trackers (iPhone -> I=Phone). Etc.pp..

We are sheep and we get eaten. Since we don't take any measurements against it on just about any level, while sad, it's only a natural course. *munch* *munch*

Shifting the Blame!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr. Obama has been quite clear that change requuires participation on the local level.

You are shifting the blame for this global meltdown on the citizens with that callow comment.

It's NOT our fault, and to shift the blame AND recovery on us is absurd!

Obama does NOT deserve to be called "mister", he's "more of the same" shit as before.